What the Heck is Dialectics? Part-II

Posted on August 3 2009 by admin


Dialectics is a tool to understand the way things are and the way things change. Understanding dialectics is as easy as 1 – 2 – 3.

One–Every thing (every object and every process) is made of opposing forces/opposing sides.

Two–Gradual changes lead to turning points, where one opposite overcomes the other.

Three–Change moves in spirals, not circles.

These are the three laws of dialectics according to Frederick Engels, a revolutionary thinker and partner of Karl Marx, writing in the 1870s in his book Dialectics of Nature. Engels believed that dialectics was “A very simple process which is taking place everywhere and every day, which any child can understand”. In fact, if you understand  part -1, you already understand the basics of dialectics. (If you landed here without visiting these pages first, please go to the Dialectics for Kids now).

Here’s how it works -

1) Everything is made of opposites.

No object could hold together without an opposing force to keep it from flying apart. The earth tries to fly away from the sun, but gravity holds it in orbit. Electrons try to fly away from the nucleus of an atom, but electromagnetism holds the atom together. Ligaments and tendons provide the ties that hold bones together and muscles to bones.

Like material objects, the process of change needs opposing forces. Change needs a driving force to push it ahead, otherwise everything stays put. A billiard ball only moves when hit with a pool cue or another ball. We eat when our hunger tells us to. A car won’t move if it’s engine won’t start. To win in fair elections candidates need more votes than their opponents.

Engels, drawing from the philosopher, Hegel, called this law the “interpenetration of opposites”; Hegel often referred to the “unity of opposites.” This may sound contradictory, but it is easy to understand. It’s like the saying, “It takes two to tango.” There is no game if one side quits. There is no atom if the electrons fly away. The whole needs all of its parts to be a whole.

Here’s a challenge–Can you think of anything that isn’t made of opposites? Send your suggestions to

dialectics4kids@igc.org To read some challenges and responses click here.

2) Gradual changes lead to turning points.

The ABC’s of Change give 26 examples of this, one for each letter of the alphabet. What happens is that the two opposing forces in a process of change push against each other. As long as one side is stronger than the other side, change is gradual. But when the other side becomes stronger, there is a turning point–an avalanche, a birth, a collapse, a discovery, . . .

Physicist Michio Kaku gives a detailed example of this process in his book Hyperspace. He follows the turning points or stages in the heating of an ice cube. Click here to see how he describes it:

The Dialectics of Water

Engels called this the law of the transformation of quantity into quality. Quantitative change is the gradual build-up of one opposing force. Qualitative change takes place when that opposite becomes dominant.

This law is powerful in describing the stages of development of anything. A person’s life follows these quantitative/qualitative changes. Likewise human history, or the history of a particular place, has gone through many stages. The tool of dialectics is so powerful that Michio Kaku describes the history of the universe for its first 10 billion years by a series of dialectical stages, using only 250 words.

Using the same approach it is possible to trace the history of the universe right up to the present by identifying the key turning points. 3) Change moves in spirals, not circles.

Many changes are cyclical–first one side dominates, then the other–as in day/night, breathing in/breathing out, one opposite then another. Dialectics argues that these cycles do not come back exactly to where they started; they don’t make a perfect circle. Instead, change is evolutionary, moving in a spiral.

Maybe the changes are tiny, so we think nothing is really different–it’s true that we hardly change in a measurable way with every breath. But we can see that many cycles do come around to a different place –children are not the same as their parents, even if they are a lot alike. People go to school and learn; when they return home, they are no longer the same. And, like it or not, you are a bit older with every breath. For more examples, see

Spirals A – Z or Popcorn, Earthquakes, and Other Changes.

Engels, again following Hegel, called this law “negation of negation”. This sounds complicated, but, as Engels said, it is going on all the time. What happens is that first one side overcomes its opposite–this is the first negation. This marks a turning point as in Engels’ 2nd law. Next, the new side is once again overcome by the first side. This is negation of negation.

Here are a couple more examples, one cosmic and two common:

The earliest stars were made of hydrogen and helium that were produced in the big bang. Those first generation stars fused these elements into heavier elements such as carbon, oxygen, and iron. When those stars died,(i.e.were negated) they pushed those elements into space. If the first generation star died in a supernova, even heavier elements such as silver and gold were hurled into space. When second or third generation stars form, like our sun, they have these heavier elements, thereby allowing planets and life to form. This evolution is negation of negation.

A normal conversation requires negation of negation to move ahead. First one person talks, then the other; the second negates the first. Pretty soon, however, the first person begins talking again. The conversation makes no sense if the first person simply repeats what they said the first time. Instead, the first person now has listened to the second person talk, so the negation of negation returns to a different place (hopefully one of more understanding.)

Unfortunately spirals can go down as well as up. For example, if a person is feeling depressed, they may take drugs or alcohol to feel better. This may negate their bad feelings for a while, but when the drug wears off, the person often feels worse than when they started.

Of course we want our spirals to go upward. When they do, we live healthier and happier lives, full of learning, growing, and reaching our full potential.

So that’s the three laws of dialectics–not too difficult, don’t you agree?

Of course, there’s more to understanding change than these three laws. If you’d like to learn more, here are some more essays about dialectics:

Where Did These Ideas Come From?

    The ideas of dialectics have a long history. In Asia, the idea that everything is made of opposites–yin and yang–dates back to the I Ching around 3,000 years ago and the Taoist master Lao Tzu around 2,500 years ago. Taoism holds that change is the only constant. Taoist philosophy also understood that “gradual change leads to a sudden change of form (hua).” (Stephen Karcher, Ta Chuan, The Great Treatise, by Stephen Karcher, St. Martins Press, NY, 2000, page 53).

    Also around 2,500 years ago in ancient Greece, Heraclitus advanced the idea that all change comes through the struggle of opposites. For more about Heraclitus read

    Dialectics–It’s All Greek to Me. The Aztecs also held the idea of nature being made of opposites, as did the Lakotas in North America. In Africa, the Dogon people of Mali hold the concept of “twin-ness”–perfection/imperfection, disorder/order, etc. in their view of nature and human existence. I’m sure there are many examples from other cultures.

    For some reason the idea of everything being made of opposites died out in Western thought. Part of the blame goes to Aristotle. Aristotle’s formal logic argued that things can’t be both black and white, good and bad–they have to be either/or, not both/and. Unfortunately, St. Thomas promoted Aristotle’s view, and this became the official word of the church in the middle ages. But, as Obi-wan Kenobi says, ‘Only the Sith deal in absolutes.” (Star Wars, Episode III)

    By failing to recognize that everything is made of opposites, and that change comes through the conflict between opposing forces, Western philosophy has mystified or even denied change. Eastern philosophy recognizes change as the movement of opposites, but generally sees it as cyclical, without forward motion and evolution. So neither viewpoint was able to grasp the unprecedented changes that started with the industrial revolution in the 19th Century.

    Kant and Hegel – Immanual Kant and G.W.F. Hegel reintroduced the idea of dialectics just as the industrial revolution was beginning. Their starting point was ancient Greek philosophy, from which they took the word, dialectics. Hegel writes, “Dialectic. . . is no novelty in philosophy. Among the ancients Plato is termed the inventor of Dialectic; and his right to the name rests on the fact that the Platonic philosophy first gave the free scientific, and thus at the same time the objective, form to Dialectic.”

    Hegel also describes Socrates use of, “the dialectical element in a predominantly subjective shape, that of Irony.”

    Hegel credits Immanuel Kant for resurrecting the importance of dialectics. “In modern times it was, more than any other, Kant who resuscitated the name of Dialectic, and restored it to its post of honour. He did it . . . by working out the Antinomies of the reason.” (The three previous quotes are from Hegel’s Logic, Part One of the Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences(1830),, Translated by J.N. Findlay, Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1975, page 117.)

    Hegel addressed a paradox posed by Kant, that the world consists of antinomies– contradictions that cannot be resolved. Kant discusses “a dialectical doctrine of pure reason” that must involve “a natural and unavoidable illusion . . . which can never be eradicated” (Kant, Critique of Pure Reason (abridged), Translated by Norman K. Smith, Random House, NY, 1958, page 215). Kant goes on to say, “after they [the hypothetical opposing forces on the 'dialectical battlefield'] have rather exhausted than injured one another, they will perhaps themselves perceive the futility of their quarrel and part good friends.” (Critique of Pure Reason , page 216).

    The problem as Kant sees it is that reality presents us with an insoluble dilemma. Kant identifies four antinomies, in which it is possible to prove that both sides are true. These antinomies are:

    1. The world is both limited in time and space and it is infinite

    2. Matter is both made of discreet particles and is also a continuous composite

    3. Everything is determined according to laws of nature and there are other causes apart from nature

    4. An absolutely necessary being both exists and does not exist in the world.

    Because of these irreconcilable dialectics Kant argued that we cannot know a “thing-in-itself.” We can only know the appearance, not the essence of reality.

    Hegel replied, yes, contradictions are inherent in reality, but so what? Everything is made of opposites. ¡No Problemo! To quote Hegel, “Everything that surrounds us may be viewed as an instance of Dialectic.” (Hegel’s Logic, page 118.) Hegel believed that it is the interplay between opposites that leads to all observable phenomena and our interactions with the world. As he responded to Kant, “. . . profounder insight into the antinomial, or more truly into the dialectical nature of reason demonstrates any Notion whatever to be a unity of opposed moments. . .” (Hegel’s Science of Logic,, Translated by A.V. Miller, London, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1969, page 191).

    Hegel argues that Kant’s “conception of the antinomies . . . as contradictions which reason must necessarily come up against . . . is an important view.” But Kant is unable to resolve the contradiction because each of the “opposed moments . . .[is taken] in isolation from the other.” ( Hegel’s Science of Logic, page 191) Hegel uses Kant’s example of the antinomy/contradiction that matter is both discrete and continuous. Hegel argues, “. . . neither of these determinations taken alone, has truth; this belongs only to their unity. This is the true dialectical consideration of them and also the true result.” (Hegel’s Science of Logic, page 197)

    Hegel states, “the Antinomies are not confined to the four special objects taken from Cosmology: they appear in all objects of every kind, in all conceptions, notions, and Ideas. . . .The true and positive meaning of the antinomies is this: that every actual thing involves a coexistence of opposed elements. Consequently to know, or, in other words, to comprehend an object is equivalent to being conscious of it as a concrete unity of opposed determinations.” (Hegel’s Logic,, page 78)

    The problem with Hegel, aside from his sometimes impenetrable prose (he clearly needed to read “Dialectics for Kids”), is that he expressed ultimate reality as “The Idea.” In other words he believed that thought is primary over matter, that reality is ultimately a manifestation of our thinking. For him dialectics was essentially a matter of analyzing the issues of logic and the human spirit.

    Hegel and Engels – Two young followers of Hegel, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, took Hegel’s ideas and transformed them into a philosophical tool for analyzing history, nature, and making social change. They kept the idea of dialectics–motion and change coming about through opposing forces–but turned Hegel “upside down.” They argued that thought is a manifestation of the natural world–that our thoughts flow from our experiences and the material world.

    Most of the credit for popularizing the idea that this dialectical process is based in nature and human affairs goes to Engels. He boiled down the voluminous and opaque writings of Hegel into three “laws” as cited on the previous page of this site. Marx either didn’t have the patience to do this or was not interested. He did remark to Engels in a letter in 1858 that he “would greatly like to make accessible to the ordinary human intelligence, in two or three printers sheets, what is rational in the method which Hegel discovered, but at the same time enveloped in mysticism.”

    Engels books, Anti-Duhring and Dialectics of Nature , mark his attempt to explain dialectics to a popular audience, but they are not exactly easy reading. This web site is aimed at popularizing dialectics to an even broader audience.

    For those wishing to gain a deeper understanding into how Engels drew his ideas about dialectics from Hegel, below are some quotes from Hegel which lead to Engels’ formulation of the three laws. These quotes only show that Engels (and this web site) owe a lot to Hegel, not that dialectics as Engels formulated it is identical with Hegel. I also don’t think these quotes prove the validity of dialectics. Your daily experience and all scientific experience do that. The quotes just help show where the ideas come from.

    1. Unity of Opposites - Hegel describes “The Law of Contradiction” – “Everything is inherently contradictory. . . . contradiction is the root of all movement and vitality; it is only in so far as something has a contradiction within it that it moves, has an urge and activity. (page 439, Hegel’s Science of Logic, cited above).

    Also, “. . . the grasping of opposites in their unity . . . is the most important aspect of dialectic. . .” (page 56, Hegel’s Science of Logic)

    Also note the quotes above where Hegel both credits and refutes Kant’s concept of antimonies.

    Note that Hegel uses the word contradiction to mean the conflict between two opposing sides. (page 431, Hegel’s Science of Logic) He does not mean simply a logically contradictory statement such as, “That object is a horse and a television.” Rather contradiction in dialectics refers to two sides which are separate, but in relation with each other–positive proton/negative electron, husband/wife, being sleepy/staying awake, etc. as discussed in many examples in Dialectics for Kids. See also the essay

    Contradictions Everywhere for more discussion of this term.

    2. Quantitative Change Becomes Qualitative – Hegel’s Science of Logic , pages 368 -370, gives numerous “examples of such nodal lines”, i.e. the leap from quantitative to qualitative change. He states that “metal oxides . . . are formed at certain quantitative points of oxidation . . . They do not pass gradually into one another; the proportions lying in between these nodes do not produce a neutral or a specific substance. . . . Again, water when its temperature is altered does not merely get more or less hot, but passes through from the liquid into either the solid or gaseous states; these states do not appear gradually; on the contrary, each new state appears as a leap, suddenly interrupting and checking the gradual succession of temperature changes at these points. Every birth and death, far from being a progressive gradualness, is an interruption of it and is the leap from a quantitative into a qualitative alteration.”

    In his book, Phenomenology of Mind, Hegel writes that the spirit of man
    “. . . is indeed never at rest, but carried along the stream of progress ever onward. But it is here as in the case of the birth of a child; after a long period of nutrition in silence, the continuity of the gradual growth in size, of quantitative change, is suddenly cut short by the first breath drawn–there is a break in the process, a qualitative change–and the child is born. . . . In like matter the spirit of the time, growing slowly and quietly ripe for the new form it is to assume, disintegrates one fragment after another of the structure of its previous world . . . . This gradual crumbling to pieces, which did not alter the look and aspect of the whole, is interrupted by the sunrise, which, in a flash and at a ingle stroke, brings to view the form and structure of the new world.” (Hegel, Phenomenology of Mind, translated by J.B. Baille, George Allen & Unwin, Ltd, 1964, page 75)

    3. Negation of Negation – Engels describes his 3rd law as “negation of negation.” He argued that this is “the fundamental law for the construction of the whole system” [of dialectics]. (Engels, Dialectics of Nature, International Publishers, New York, 1940, Page 26.) Unfortunately, Dialectics of Nature, is an unfinished work, and Engels never proceeded to give rigorous examples of negation of negation in the same way that he did for quantitative/qualitative changes. As noted on the page, “What the Heck is Dialectics?”, Engels did say that negation of negation is “a very simple process which is taking place everywhere and every day, which any child can understand.” (Anti-Dühring, International Publishers, New York, 1939, page 148) This quote helped inspire me to create this web site, to see if I could prove Engels’ point.

    With regard to the first two laws of Engels, I feel that they are correct because I can’t think of any exceptions to them. On the other hand, with regard to negation of negation, I think there needs to be a further discussion. Hegel does use the term, but hardly in a simple fashion. He refers to the way “the bud disappears when the blossom breaks through. . .the former is refuted by the latter. . . the fruit appears . . . in place of the blossom.” (Hegel, Phenomenology of Mind, page 68).

    Also Hegel repeatedly uses the three-fold process of negation of negation in his logic. E.g. Being-Nothing-Becoming; Essence-Appearance-Actuality; Theoretical Mind-Practical Mind-Free Mind; The Universal-The Particular-The Singular. In each case the first element is negated by the second, which is in turn negated by the third. And in each case the third element, the negation of negation, has features of the original element, but is at a higher level of meaning. The problem, as noted earlier, is that Hegel is primarily focused on the mind, not on nature.

    Engels, similar to Hegel’s example of a bud, uses the example of a grain of barley.     “. . . if such a grain of barley. . . falls on suitable soil, then under the influence of heat and moisture a specific change takes place, it germinates; the grain as such ceases to exist, it is negated, and in its place appears the plant which has arisen from it, the negation of the grain. But what is the normal life-process of this plant? It grows, flowers, is fertilized and finally once more produces grains of barley, and as soon as these have ripened the stalk dies, is in its turn negated. As a result of this negation of the negation we have once again the original grain of barley, but not as a single unit, but ten, twenty or thirty fold.” (Anti-Dühring, page 149.)

    In this web site, on the page Spirals A-Z, I have given many examples of negation of negation. However, unlike the case of Engel’s first two laws, I don’t think the case for negation of negation is so conclusive. As noted, with regard to everything being made of opposites, I just can’t think of anything that isn’t, so it makes sense to call this a “law” like Engels did. Likewise, with the change from quantity to quality, I can’t think of any counter examples, so this also seems reasonable to be described as a “law.” Now I know that a list of examples are not sufficient to prove a theory, but theory without concrete examples is a pure abstraction. Also, if new examples don’t support the theory, the theory has to change. That’s why I am always eager for examples of dialectical processes.

    Consider the following examples that seem to contradict negation of negation. In each case the second negation does not appear to me to form a synthesis of the first two.

    1. ice – liquid water – steam
    2. fish – dinosaurs – mammals (evolution of life on earth in general)
    3. formation of protons and electrons in the big bang – formation of atoms – formation of stars (evolution of the cosmos in general, although the example star – supernova – new generation star does follow the pattern of negation of negation)

    I can also think of a large group of examples where the reappearance of some features of the original entity, but at a higher level, occurs after a number of negations, not just one step

    1. the periodic chart — inert gases with common properties occur at regular intervals along with other elements in columns as atomic number increases; e.g. hydrogen …lithium ….sodium. .. . potassium etc.
    2. the musical scale — do re mi fa so la ti do (This was an example raised by Hegel, Science of Logic, page 368 and, of course, Maria von Trapp)
    3. the internal combustion engine — combustion – exhaust – intake – compression – combustion
    4. a vacation — journey begins – travel here/there/up/down/etc. – journey ends
    5. the food cycle – cultivation – harvest – delivery to market – purchase – preparation – consumption of food – digestion – excretion – fertilizer for more cultivation

    Now in each of these five cases, the end result is a negation of negation, i.e. the original condition is repeated, but at a different level. So these examples are at least in the spirit of Engels’ third law. All in all, however, it seems to me that negation of negation is more of a general principle that repeatedly occurs in nature, but it is not at the level of a “law”.

    The importance of negation of negation is to understand that change does not simply go in circles. Cycles do occur–rain, CO2, seasons, life itself–but with each cycle some things change. Most importantly, every conscious act that we carry out should result in a higher level of information for us–e.g. try – fail – learn from mistakes and try again.

    Dialectical Materialism - The philosophy that Marx and Engels originated is called dialectical materialism, a term coined by the Russian Marxist philosopher G. Plekhanov. See The Evolution of Dialectical Materialism by ZA Jordan, St. Martin’s Press, New York, 1967 for a detailed, albeit theoretically flawed, account of this.

    Does this mean that those who agree with dialectical materialism have to agree with Marx’s writings on capitalism, or Stalin’s 5 year plans, or Mao Zedong’s cultural revolution, or other’s who describe themselves as Marxist-Leninists? Not at all. Dialectical materialism is a tool for analyzing reality, not a set of dogmatic beliefs. Unfortunately in the former Soviet Union, particularly under Stalin, the Party leaders justified their actions in the name of dialectical materialism. Since history has shown that many of the Party’s policies were repressive and/or inept, the concept of dialectical materialism was also discredited.

    But dialectical materialism is not to blame for the failure of Soviet socialism any more than it is to blame for the failure of a car to start. Those who believe that socialism is impossible could argue that the fall of the Soviet Union is no more due to a failure of dialectical materialism than is the inability to get a car to fly. Personally I think that the problems of socialism have to do with what the free-market economist Ludwig von Mises called “the calculation problem”.  The P

    oint here, however, is that the problem with socialism was not dialectical materialism.

    While dogmatism on the part of Marxists was surely part of the problem, the failure of dialectical materialism to catch on as a popular world view is not just the fault of the left. People in power are generally not thrilled by a philosophy that teaches people how to change the status quo. It is a lot more comfortable for the powers-that-be (follow the money to see who that is) to downplay the way changes happen and how people can bring change about. With the end of the cold war, the victorious capitalists would just as soon see dialectical materialism disappear, like the former Soviet Union did.

    Of course there is also the possibility that all of the examples and ideas on this web site are wrong. If so, I welcome any reader to point out the errors in this thinking. I know there are many points that need development. Also, along the same lines, I welcome anyone who has researched the history of dialectics and can offer more information about how different cultures have viewed dialectics and how different thinkers have approached the subject.

    My favorite book on the subject is Dialectical Materialism by Ira Gollobin. The politics are outdated, but the exposition of dialectics is excellent. The book has lots of great examples. And it also has thorough rebuttals to philosophers such as Sartre, Tillich, Hook, Popper, Krishnamurti and others who oppose dialectical materialism. The book is in dozens of libraries. You can get it by inter-library loan.

    Please contact me at dialectics4kids@igc.org with any constructive criticism or suggestions.

    Whew! That was a pretty lengthy essay. Maybe this is a good time to take a break and check out

    Dialectics, the Musical just for fun.

    • “The older I get the more wisdom I find in the ancient rule of taking first things first–A process which often reduces the most complex human problem to a manageable proportion.” – Dwight D. Eisenhower

    • If your goal is to live a physically active life, you will need to eat properly, exercise, and get enough sleep. On the other hand, if you really just want to kick back and watch TV, these healthy habits are not as essential. Could it be that the epidemic of obesity in the United States has to do with people finding their main joy in life comes from being a couch potato?
    • If you want good grades as a student, you need to do your homework, study, and prepare for examinations. On the other hand if your goal is to slide by with “gentleman C’s,” you may do the minimum of work, do term papers at the last minute, and put off studying until the night before exams.
    • If you are on a sports team, and you want to win, you have to practice, learn teamwork, study your opponent, and work out. On the other hand, if you would like to win, but don’t care too much, you can go through the motions of practice and hope for the best.
    • As a government, if you want to stop global warming, you can pass laws funding conversions to solar, wind, and fuel cells; you can support higher taxes on carbon, and you can support targets to limit CO2 emissions. On the other hand, if you would rather promote oil company profits, you can deny that global warming exists and resist international protocols (rumor has it that U.S. President Bush opposed the Kyoto Accord since he favored the Toyota Camry :-)

      1. Health – Our health depends on food, water, rest, exercise, sexual release, and freedom from disease or physical danger. Of course, some people risk their lives in the military or in dangerous occupations, but only rarely do people consciously sacrifice their life for a cause bigger than themselves.

      2. A Job – To buy the food and shelter we need to survive, we must have a source of income. After health, this is the principal contradiction in our lives. The human race is a long way from providing jobs or adequate income for everyone, so this is a serious contradiction facing many individuals. Unfortunately, some jobs, such as coal mining, are injurious to health so workers face a dreadful choice between starving or destroying their health bit by bit. For young people, or unemployed people, education and job training are a vital means to get into the labor force; so, in that sense going to school is their job.

      3. Housing – Even having a job doesn’t ensure a decent place to live. Where I live in the San Francisco Bay area, getting a house or apartment is a huge problem. Many people have to crowd into housing since their incomes are not enough to pay rental rates. And some people are homeless, even though they have a job. On the other hand, where my wife was born in the Philippines, people can make nipa huts that provide adequate shelter in a few days, so maybe housing isn’t such a problem everywhere.

      4. Social ties/art and beauty – Even if you are healthy, have a job, and find a place to live, you can still be miserable. Most of us look for a sexual partner and family life to make our lives fulfilling. But people also need to stay connected with other people through their work and through social activities such as sports/music/dance/arts, volunteer work, and participating in community groups to live full lives. Of course, marriage itself is no guarantee of happiness as the high divorce rate attests. Many single people are happier than married couples through their social and artistic endeavors.

      1. Physiological Needs — This is nearly the same as health as described above.
      2. Safety Needs — Maslow thought of this more in psychological terms than physical, but I think he would agree that a job and a place to live contribute to feeling safe as well as physical needs for food and shelter.
      3. Love Needs — Maslow lists clubs, work groups, religious groups, family, gangs, etc. as helping to meet our need to feel loved and accepted by others.
      4. Esteem Needs — Maslow refers to self-esteem that comes from competence or mastery of a task, and esteem that comes from impressing others. The latter type of esteem seems to me more like insecurity due to lack of feeling loved, i.e. failure to move past level 3 in the hierarchy of needs.
      5. Self-Actualization — “the desire to become more and more what one is, to become everything that one is capable of becoming.”

    • First Things First

    With a myriad of changes and conflicting forces constantly swirling about us, how can we possibly sort it all out? How do we decide what to do next? If every atom is made of dualing opposites, and every cell in our body is struggling to survive, and every person on the earth has needs that, in some ways, conflict with other people’s needs–isn’t it a hopeless task to weave our way through the maze of contradictions?

    Not really.

    The Principal Contradiction–or, Chairman Mao Meets the 7 Habits of Highly Successful People

    Dialectics uses a concept called the “principal contradiction,” a phrase coined by Mao Zedong. This concept helps clear away non-pressing issues from the ones that need to be addressed. One way of expressing this is the phrase “first things first.” (Habit Number 3 in Stephen Covey’s book, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People) Identifying the key task, setting our top priority–allows us to focus on the most essential element of the process, rather than trying to do several things at once, or getting distracted by unimportant matters.

    If the term “contradiction” sounds, well, contradictory, and doesn’t makes sense to you, please click here for further explanation of the term.

    For the most part, putting first things first is a natural process. For example, the phone may be ringing, someone may be at the door, and you may need to go to the bathroom, but if your hand is on a hot stove, the principal contradiction is getting your hand off the stove. Fortunately, our bodies direct us away from pain pretty automatically, so you don’t need to think about dialectics in order to move your hand.

    Another example that does take a bit more thought comes from the construction industry. Here the planning process identifies a “critical path” of tasks that must be completed before further work can progress. Thus, in building a house the foundation must go in before the walls, the walls before the roof, the roof before the wiring, etc. Each of these hurdles on the critical path must be cleared before the project can proceed; each of these is, in turn, the principal contradiction in the process as a whole.

    The idea of a principal contradiction is primarily a human concept because it requires a goal oriented process. Most of nature–e.g. the sun, an ocean, a rock–does not appear to have any goal; it just is. Life, of course, has the goal of survival, or more importantly, survival of future generations. But most life acts on instinct or chemical imperatives, not conscious choice.

    It is true that raccoons can figure out very clever ways to get into a garbage can, and dogs and cats do learn how to get what they want from their owners. However, it is humans who must constantly make complex choices. While genetics is undoubtedly important in human behavior, humans must make decisions that require judgement and planning. Should we build a highway or a light rail line? Should we put up a stop sign or a traffic signal or a traffic circle? Should we build a house, an apartment building, an office, a retail store, or leave the lot vacant? Should we buy whole wheat bread or the white bread on sale? Should we buy bottled water or drink from the tap?
    Our primate DNA and our instincts are not much help in making such decisions, which involve many contradictions. Identifying the contradictions, and deciding which is the principal contradiction is essential for us humans.

    Identifying the Principal Contradiction

    The principal contradiction depends on what the goal of the overall process is. When you identify an explicit goal, you can identify the steps needed to achieve it and you can place first things first. In the construction example, the goal is to get the house built. Here are some more examples of how goals determine priorities:

    Sometimes we can’t decide what to do next, i.e. we can’t decide what is the principal contradiction. This happens when we have conflicting goals. For example, we may want to do the dishes, but we may also want to relax and watch the ball game. What we do depends on what our main goal is. Watching what people do is a good clue to what they see as the principal contradiction. This is true even if the goal is subconscious, as advertisers are well aware.

    Sometimes we misjudge what the principal contradiction is, even if we know what we want. For example, if a car has a problem with its carburetor, it will not do any good to fix the ignition system. In such a case we may replace one part, then another, and still not get the car to run. Fixing a car requires identifying the problem–the principal contradiction. Otherwise it is just guesswork, and not likely to be successful.

    What Happens if You Don’t Address the Principal Contradiction?

    The principal contradiction in a process must be resolved or the process will not move forward. There may be several problems blocking the process, but resolving the principal contradiction allows the other problems to be addressed. For example, you have to clear the table before you can do the dishes.

    Of course, there’s nothing that says you have to move a process along. Maybe you never will get around to reading that book on the coffee table, or writing that letter to your sister, or inviting your friends over for dinner. If this is a conscious decision, it may be OK. Sometimes, however, people maintain a state of denial about a problem because they really don’t want to face up to it. In these cases a serious contradiction can be allowed to fester–like not going to the dentist–so the problem only gets worse. And your sister is likely to get mad if you don’t get in touch with her before too long.

    If there is a principal contradiction that cannot be resolved in a process, this is referred to as a “fatal flaw.” If a project has a fatal flaw, it should not be attempted. For example, nuclear power does not have a safe means of disposing of its radioactive wastes; this is a fatal flaw that makes nuclear power highly impractical.

    What About the Non-principal Contradictions?

    We don’t spend all of our time confronting one principal contradiction. We have to keep our “eyes on the prize”–i.e. the principal contradiction–while paying attention to many details to achieve that. In building a house, for example, the contractor has to order the roofing materials, electrical wiring, and plumbing even though building the foundation may be underway. Similarly, washing your hands or brushing your teeth may not be critical at any one time, but failure to do so would jeopardize your health in the long run. So the idea of a principal contradiction does not rule out addressing lesser problems. If they aren’t addressed, they can become much bigger, and stop progress altogether.

    At what point do secondary contradictions–cleaning up your desk, vacuuming the living room, fixing the light switch in the hallway, etc.–become important enough to resolve? This depends on your style of work, tolerance of clutter, and many personal factors. Eventually, we all get to the point where such problems do become significant enough to address (for me, not before I finish working on this essay, however!)

    Some contradictions are not necessary to address. Often junk mail has misleading wording such as “RUSH” or “Open Immediately” printed conspicuously on the envelope, enticing you to open it. Perhaps they should just say “Principal Contradiction!”

    Is There Just One Principal Contradiction?

    With all due respect to Chairman Mao, I think there are limits to the concept of principal contradiction. For example, in my weekly trip to the grocery store, it does make sense to buy the bread before the vegetables since the bread aisle comes right by the entrance to the store. In that sense buying the bread before the vegetables is placing first things first, or identifying the principal contradiction. But what about when I’m buying peanut butter vs. jelly? They are all together. Does it really matter which one I buy first?

    Similarly, when I’m folding laundry, it does make sense to fold the shirts and pants first since I don’t want them to get wrinkled. However, does it matter whether I fold the socks, towels, underwear in any particular order? I don’t think so.

    For a third example consider a stack of bills–some may be higher priority, but is it worth sorting them out rather than just taking the top one off the stack?

    [An aside--As in all of this web site, I’m sure I could be accused of trivializing philosophy in general and dialectics in particular by bringing in all these mundane examples. Mao, in his essay, "On Contradiction," wrote about the Japanese invasion of China as a more important contradiction than the struggle between the Chinese Communists and the Nationalists. Because he saw the need to defeat Japan as the primary contradiction, he urged the formation of a united front with the Nationalists (Chiang Kai-Shek). So the concept of principal contradiction was introduced at a very high level of political importance. Still, I think any useful philosophy should apply to all questions, great and small. As a tool, if dialectics doesn’t apply to grocery shopping, how can we expect it to apply to political strategy?]

    My point here with regard to the principal contradiction is similar to my discussion of negation of negation–i.e. it is a very useful description of many processes of change, but it is not a law. I can’t think of anything that isn’t composed of opposites, but I can think of situations where there may not be a single principal contradiction.

    As a practical matter I find it useful to follow the popular time management technique of writing down four or five key tasks and trying to stay focussed on these during the day, even as distractions naturally arise. This doesn’t take away from the importance of identifying the key contradiction at any one moment and trying to resolve it. It’s just that occasionally there may be a few contradictions overlapping, like the socks and towels, and they can be dealt with as equal priorities.

    The Principal Contradiction in Our Lives

    As noted in the hot stove example, in many cases our bodies automatically respond to the contradictions we face. This is because we are a well-evolved part of nature. As such, most of our bodily functions are managed without any conscious effort. We don’t have to remember to breathe; our food digests automatically; our heart keeps a steady beat. When our body needs food or water, it lets us know. If something is coming toward our eye, we automatically blink (or if it’s a big object, we duck). Our instinct to survive guides us around lots of pitfalls–we don’t step out into the street in front of moving traffic; if there is a tornado or hurricane coming, we take cover; when it’s cold, we look for warmth and shelter.

    If most of our basic needs are driven by our animal natures, what choices do we have, and how do we make them? Below are listed four fundamental contradictions facing us as human beings in our personal lives, more or less in order of priority. Both as individuals and as a society we have many choices in resolving these contradictions.

    Most of our lives are bound up with resolving these contradictions–staying healthy, holding down a job, finding a place to live, and seeking fulfillment through intimate relations and self expression. This list of contradictions is similar to the psychologist, Abraham Maslow’s, “Hierarchy of Needs.” Maslow listed five needs in his hierarchy, each of which has to be resolved before the next one can be addressed:

    I don’t see any need to debate about whether Maslow’s list is better than list I came up with. Roughly, I would say that Maslow’s first two needs correspond to my first three contradictions and his last three needs correspond to my fourth contradiction. In any case the general idea is that basic material needs have to be addressed before people can move on to developing close human relationships and working for positive social change. It’s difficult for a person who is starving to help other people.

    Hopefully, this short essay has explained the concept of principal contradiction in dialectics. As in most of this web site, the examples have been chosen to show that dialectics applies to all of reality, not just politics, as some people may assume. I welcome comments and counter-examples. Maybe you think this whole concept of principal contradiction is flawed. If so, let me know at dialectics4kids@igc.org.

    Besides our daily lives, dialectics definitely does apply to politics as well. For a political essay on the use of dialectics to analyze the principal contradiction in society, please read “What is the principal contradiction?”.


Why Doesn’t Everyone Learn Dialectics?


    Everyone knows how things change. We have to in order to survive –when we get hungry, we have to eat; when we get thirsty, we have to drink; we have to breathe in and breathe out. We know that there is no point in having a conversation, going to school, going to work, taking a nap, or doing anything if we are simply going in circles. We have a conversation or go to school to learn; we go to work to earn money; we nap to get rested.

    So why isn’t dialectics simply acknowledged and taught in every home and school? The answer is that people in power have always feared change– they have privileges and don’t want to lose them. All through history kings, pharoahs, czars, emperors and the like–through their generals, overseers, and high priests–have taught people to be obedient, so that no one would challenge the ruler’s control. Naturally the idea that everyone could go on strike or otherwise overthrow the king was not very popular with the rulers. They wanted to believe that their rule would last forever.

    What about today? Are people in power still afraid of change? Unfortunately, yes. In today’s world we still have much poverty, hunger, and homelessness in the midst of great wealth. People with money are afraid that poor people will take it from them–it’s really that simple. Since people of wealth and power control the media, the schools, and most information sources, they have the ability to teach dialectics, but they have chosen not to.

    In some places dictators violently repress any efforts to make changes. In advanced industrial societies there is more freedom of expression–that’s why this web site exists. But most money is behind conservative talk show hosts, politicians, preachers, police, and military leaders who stand in the way of changes that would redistribute wealth more equally.

    So don’t expect much help in learning dialectics from the media, schools, or the government. Many open minded people who agree with these ideas are scared to teach them because they fear being labled a communist. This isn’t an idle fear, since people can lose their jobs based on this accusation. Even philosophers, who ought to know better, aren’t much help.

    Now, to be fair, it is true that countries that have adopted communist systems have not been successful, and some have been downright horrendous. But dialectics is no more to blame for this than it is for your car not to start or for your bus to be late. However, dialectics is a tool that can help understand why socialism collapsed (and why your car won’t start and maybe even the bus being late). For an essay discussing the dialectics of communism please click here:

    “What does dialectics have to do with communism?”

    The basic way to understand dialectics is to learn from and trust your experience (as explained throughout this web site). You can also learn from science (e.g. see the quotes from Michio Kaku–

    The Dialectics of Water and The Dialectics of the Universe as mentioned above).

    Also, look outside of corporate controlled information sources to publications like

    Z Magazine, radio stations like KPFA, commentators like Noam Chomsky, and organizations like Global Exchange. Of course, it would be great if “Dialectics for Kids” were taught in school, so, if you are a teacher, give it a shot and see what happens. Maybe you can be part of a really big change in what is taught!


    • Knowing that everything changes and how things change gives you power. Sometimes people say, “What difference can one person make?” When you understand that each drop adds up to make a mighty ocean, you know you are important. Every vote counts; every voice matters; that extra bit of effort may be all it takes to reach a turning point. Every step in a long journey brings you closer to your goal.

      Of course, some things are not possible–building a sand castle on the beach will not hold back the tide. The serenity prayer offers some sound advice– “Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.”

      Dialectics provides the tool that gives you the wisdom to work steadily and patiently for change–building the side you want to win, studying how much farther you need to go and what you need to do to make a turning point. When all of your bits of effort are added to other people’s, great things can be accomplished–buildings are built, railroads are run, games are won, diseases are defeated, space ships are launched.

      If we want to create a world with food, clothing, shelter, health, and a bright future for all, we can do it. Dialectics teaches that change is within our power. Now all there is left to do is to make it happen.

      Dialectics also teaches us to look at all sides of a problem. The saying, “He who knows only his own side knows little of it,” applies here. Knowing that change can only occur when one side overcomes the opposing side teaches us to learn about both sides’ strengths and weaknesses.

      ,
      Appendix1.

      • The first person to develop a comprehensive dialectical world view was Heraclitus who was born around 520 BC. Although only fragments of Heraclitus’ writings remain, they have been thoroughly analyzed and debated. According to Charles Kahn in his book, The Art and Thought of Heraclitus, (Cambridge University Press, London, 1979) Heraclitus adopted the natural philosophy developed in Miletus. Thales of Miletus successfully predicted an e clipse in 585 BC. Thales pupil, Anaximander (611-547 BC), explained all natural phenomena “in terms of a conflict between opposing powers.” (page 18)

        Heraclitus discovered that the concept of unity of opposites applies to the inner human psyche as well as the natural world. “The great cosmic cycle is only the ordinary cycle of natural change and human life writ large.” ( page 136) Heraclitus’ understood “human life and death as a unity, which forms the central insight in what Heraclitus means by ‘wisdom’.” (page 110) Kahn argues that Heraclitus view is “congenial to Hegel” with its positive interpretation of negativity–recognizing the life enhancing function of the negative term. Heraclitus recognized that “all things come to pass in accordance with conflict.” (page 205)

        According to Kahn, “The gods of Heraclitus, . . .can only be the elemental powers and constituents of the cosmos, from which our life comes and to which it returns.” This view conflicted with the general religion of the day and with philosophical successors such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle who believed that celestial objects were divinities, not material objects.

        Heraclitus’ views also conflicted with his contemporary Parmenides who argued that nature was an “unchanging constancy.” (The Presocratic Tradition from Parmenides to Democritus, WKC Guthrie, Cambridge University Press, 1965). Ironically, a pupil of Parmenides, Zeno of Elea, coined the word ‘dialectics’ to describe a means of argumentation using paradoxes to prove Parmenides point about reality being unchanging, motionless and indivisible. Similarly Plato used the term dialectic to refer to his world view as developed through questions and answers aimed at showing absurdities in opposing views. Aristotle used the term more as a description of the technique than as a world view itself. So the actual Greek usage of the term dialectic was more limited than today’s term, and in some ways was directly opposed to the current usage.

        It wasn’t until Hegel that dialectic came to mean a broader philosophical world view. The Encyclopaedia Brittanica, Macropedia Vol 4, 15th Edition, 2005, sums it up under the heading “Dialectics”–”originally a form of logical argumentation, but now a philosophical concept of evolution applied to diverse fields including thought, nature, and history.”

        • in bed – out of bed
        • unwashed – washed
        • unshaven – shaven (well, those wooly European type guys at least, unless they grow a beard)
        • unbrushed teeth – brushed teeth
        • uncombed hair – combed hair
        • undressed – dressed
        • hungry – fed
        • morning newspaper unread – paper read (well, at least the Boondocks, Doonesbury, and Dilbert cartoons)
        • in the house – out of the house
        • waiting for the bus – on the bus (or off the bike/on the bike, out of the car/in the car, etc. depending on your mode of transportation)
        • going to work/school – at work/school

        • On an assembly line the products go from unassembled to assembled.
        • For a bookkeeper, the books go from out-of balance to in-balance, or accounts receivable go from unsent to sent.
        • For a busy parent or child care provider, diapers go from unchanged to changed.
        • For a gardener the hedge goes from untrimmed to trimmed.
        • School involves contradictions such as changing unsolved math problems to solved problems, undiagrammed sentences to diagrammed, misspelled words to correctly spelled words, and so on.

        • unread email – read email
        • unread in-box – read in-box
        • unheard voicemail – heard voicemail
        • unwritten reports – written reports

        • 2,

        Contradictions Everywhere

        As argued throughout this web site, everything is made of opposites, and every change has two opposing forces. These forces move in opposite, or contradictory directions, so we call this struggle of opposites a contradiction.

        Contradictions occur everywhere in nature–earth-sun, predator-prey, electrons-protons–in every object and every process. Life is a process of overcoming obstacles–resolving contradictions in order to move forward and survive.

        Here are a number of contradictions that most of us resolve on a typical day: In general, work is about resolving unresolved contradictions. Here are some contradictions that apply to a typical office job: Of course our bodily functions continue no matter what kind of job we have. No matter how pressing our work demands are, sooner or later we have to go to the bathroom (full bladder – empty bladder), get something to eat (hungry – fed), take a stretch or rest break (unstretched – stretched, unrested – rested).

        And so it goes all day long–we face contradictions and we resolve them–or they get resolved naturally, like when we get tired and fall asleep at the end of the day.

        Some contradictions are more important than others.

        .
        • “The older I get the more wisdom I find in the ancient rule of taking first things first–A process which often reduces the most complex human problem to a manageable proportion.” – Dwight D. Eisenhower

          With a myriad of changes and conflicting forces constantly swirling about us, how can we possibly sort it all out? How do we decide what to do next? If every atom is made of dualing opposites, and every cell in our body is struggling to survive, and every person on the earth has needs that, in some ways, conflict with other people’s needs–isn’t it a hopeless task to weave our way through the maze of contradictions?

          Not really.

          The Principal Contradiction–or, Chairman Mao Meets the 7 Habits of Highly Successful People

          Dialectics uses a concept called the “principal contradiction,” a phrase coined by Mao Zedong. This concept helps clear away non-pressing issues from the ones that need to be addressed. One way of expressing this is the phrase “first things first.” (Habit Number 3 in Stephen Covey’s book, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People) Identifying the key task, setting our top priority–allows us to focus on the most essential element of the process, rather than trying to do several things at once, or getting distracted by unimportant matters.

          If the term “contradiction” sounds, well, contradictory, and doesn’t makes sense to you, please click

          here for further explanation of the term.

          For the most part, putting first things first is a natural process. For example, the phone may be ringing, someone may be at the door, and you may need to go to the bathroom, but if your hand is on a hot stove, the principal contradiction is getting your hand off the stove. Fortunately, our bodies direct us away from pain pretty automatically, so you don’t need to think about dialectics in order to move your hand.

          Another example that does take a bit more thought comes from the construction industry. Here the planning process identifies a “critical path” of tasks that must be completed before further work can progress. Thus, in building a house the foundation must go in before the walls, the walls before the roof, the roof before the wiring, etc. Each of these hurdles on the critical path must be cleared before the project can proceed; each of these is, in turn, the principal contradiction in the process as a whole.

          The idea of a principal contradiction is primarily a human concept because it requires a goal oriented process. Most of nature–e.g. the sun, an ocean, a rock–does not appear to have any goal; it just is. Life, of course, has the goal of survival, or more importantly, survival of future generations. But most life acts on instinct or chemical imperatives, not conscious choice.

          It is true that raccoons can figure out very clever ways to get into a garbage can, and dogs and cats do learn how to get what they want from their owners. However, it is humans who must constantly make complex choices. While genetics is undoubtedly important in human behavior, humans must make decisions that require judgement and planning. Should we build a highway or a light rail line? Should we put up a stop sign or a traffic signal or a traffic circle? Should we build a house, an apartment building, an office, a retail store, or leave the lot vacant? Should we buy whole wheat bread or the white bread on sale? Should we buy bottled water or drink from the tap?
          Our primate DNA and our instincts are not much help in making such decisions, which involve many contradictions. Identifying the contradictions, and deciding which is the principal contradiction is essential for us humans.

          Identifying the Principal Contradiction

          The principal contradiction depends on what the goal of the overall process is. When you identify an explicit goal, you can identify the steps needed to achieve it and you can place first things first. In the construction example, the goal is to get the house built. Here are some more examples of how goals determine priorities:

        • If your goal is to live a physically active life, you will need to eat properly, exercise, and get enough sleep. On the other hand, if you really just want to kick back and watch TV, these healthy habits are not as essential. Could it be that the epidemic of obesity in the United States has to do with people finding their main joy in life comes from being a couch potato?
        • If you want good grades as a student, you need to do your homework, study, and prepare for examinations. On the other hand if your goal is to slide by with “gentleman C’s,” you may do the minimum of work, do term papers at the last minute, and put off studying until the night before exams.
        • If you are on a sports team, and you want to win, you have to practice, learn teamwork, study your opponent, and work out. On the other hand, if you would like to win, but don’t care too much, you can go through the motions of practice and hope for the best.
        • As a government, if you want to stop global warming, you can pass laws funding conversions to solar, wind, and fuel cells; you can support higher taxes on carbon, and you can support targets to limit CO2 emissions. On the other hand, if you would rather promote oil company profits, you can deny that global warming exists and resist international protocols (rumor has it that U.S. President Bush opposed the Kyoto Accord since he favored the Toyota Camry :-)

          1. Health – Our health depends on food, water, rest, exercise, sexual release, and freedom from disease or physical danger. Of course, some people risk their lives in the military or in dangerous occupations, but only rarely do people consciously sacrifice their life for a cause bigger than themselves.

          2. A Job – To buy the food and shelter we need to survive, we must have a source of income. After health, this is the principal contradiction in our lives. The human race is a long way from providing jobs or adequate income for everyone, so this is a serious contradiction facing many individuals. Unfortunately, some jobs, such as coal mining, are injurious to health so workers face a dreadful choice between starving or destroying their health bit by bit. For young people, or unemployed people, education and job training are a vital means to get into the labor force; so, in that sense going to school is their job.

          3. Housing – Even having a job doesn’t ensure a decent place to live. Where I live in the San Francisco Bay area, getting a house or apartment is a huge problem. Many people have to crowd into housing since their incomes are not enough to pay rental rates. And some people are homeless, even though they have a job. On the other hand, where my wife was born in the Philippines, people can make nipa huts that provide adequate shelter in a few days, so maybe housing isn’t such a problem everywhere.

          4. Social ties/art and beauty – Even if you are healthy, have a job, and find a place to live, you can still be miserable. Most of us look for a sexual partner and family life to make our lives fulfilling. But people also need to stay connected with other people through their work and through social activities such as sports/music/dance/arts, volunteer work, and participating in community groups to live full lives. Of course, marriage itself is no guarantee of happiness as the high divorce rate attests. Many single people are happier than married couples through their social and artistic endeavors.

          1. Physiological Needs — This is nearly the same as health as described above.
          2. Safety Needs — Maslow thought of this more in psychological terms than physical, but I think he would agree that a job and a place to live contribute to feeling safe as well as physical needs for food and shelter.
          3. Love Needs — Maslow lists clubs, work groups, religious groups, family, gangs, etc. as helping to meet our need to feel loved and accepted by others.
          4. Esteem Needs — Maslow refers to self-esteem that comes from competence or mastery of a task, and esteem that comes from impressing others. The latter type of esteem seems to me more like insecurity due to lack of feeling loved, i.e. failure to move past level 3 in the hierarchy of needs.
          5. Self-Actualization — “the desire to become more and more what one is, to become everything that one is capable of becoming.”

        • 3.First Things First

        Sometimes we can’t decide what to do next, i.e. we can’t decide what is the principal contradiction. This happens when we have conflicting goals. For example, we may want to do the dishes, but we may also want to relax and watch the ball game. What we do depends on what our main goal is. Watching what people do is a good clue to what they see as the principal contradiction. This is true even if the goal is subconscious, as advertisers are well aware.

        Sometimes we misjudge what the principal contradiction is, even if we know what we want. For example, if a car has a problem with its carburetor, it will not do any good to fix the ignition system. In such a case we may replace one part, then another, and still not get the car to run. Fixing a car requires identifying the problem–the principal contradiction. Otherwise it is just guesswork, and not likely to be successful.

        What Happens if You Don’t Address the Principal Contradiction?

        The principal contradiction in a process must be resolved or the process will not move forward. There may be several problems blocking the process, but resolving the principal contradiction allows the other problems to be addressed. For example, you have to clear the table before you can do the dishes.

        Of course, there’s nothing that says you have to move a process along. Maybe you never will get around to reading that book on the coffee table, or writing that letter to your sister, or inviting your friends over for dinner. If this is a conscious decision, it may be OK. Sometimes, however, people maintain a state of denial about a problem because they really don’t want to face up to it. In these cases a serious contradiction can be allowed to fester–like not going to the dentist–so the problem only gets worse. And your sister is likely to get mad if you don’t get in touch with her before too long.

        If there is a principal contradiction that cannot be resolved in a process, this is referred to as a “fatal flaw.” If a project has a fatal flaw, it should not be attempted. For example, nuclear power does not have a safe means of disposing of its radioactive wastes; this is a fatal flaw that makes nuclear power highly impractical.

        What About the Non-principal Contradictions?

        We don’t spend all of our time confronting one principal contradiction. We have to keep our “eyes on the prize”–i.e. the principal contradiction–while paying attention to many details to achieve that. In building a house, for example, the contractor has to order the roofing materials, electrical wiring, and plumbing even though building the foundation may be underway. Similarly, washing your hands or brushing your teeth may not be critical at any one time, but failure to do so would jeopardize your health in the long run. So the idea of a principal contradiction does not rule out addressing lesser problems. If they aren’t addressed, they can become much bigger, and stop progress altogether.

        At what point do secondary contradictions–cleaning up your desk, vacuuming the living room, fixing the light switch in the hallway, etc.–become important enough to resolve? This depends on your style of work, tolerance of clutter, and many personal factors. Eventually, we all get to the point where such problems do become significant enough to address (for me, not before I finish working on this essay, however!)

        Some contradictions are not necessary to address. Often junk mail has misleading wording such as “RUSH” or “Open Immediately” printed conspicuously on the envelope, enticing you to open it. Perhaps they should just say “Principal Contradiction!”

        Is There Just One Principal Contradiction?

        With all due respect to Chairman Mao, I think there are limits to the concept of principal contradiction. For example, in my weekly trip to the grocery store, it does make sense to buy the bread before the vegetables since the bread aisle comes right by the entrance to the store. In that sense buying the bread before the vegetables is placing first things first, or identifying the principal contradiction. But what about when I’m buying peanut butter vs. jelly? They are all together. Does it really matter which one I buy first?

        Similarly, when I’m folding laundry, it does make sense to fold the shirts and pants first since I don’t want them to get wrinkled. However, does it matter whether I fold the socks, towels, underwear in any particular order? I don’t think so.

        For a third example consider a stack of bills–some may be higher priority, but is it worth sorting them out rather than just taking the top one off the stack?

        [An aside--As in all of this web site, I’m sure I could be accused of trivializing philosophy in general and dialectics in particular by bringing in all these mundane examples. Mao, in his essay, "On Contradiction," wrote about the Japanese invasion of China as a more important contradiction than the struggle between the Chinese Communists and the Nationalists. Because he saw the need to defeat Japan as the primary contradiction, he urged the formation of a united front with the Nationalists (Chiang Kai-Shek). So the concept of principal contradiction was introduced at a very high level of political importance. Still, I think any useful philosophy should apply to all questions, great and small. As a tool, if dialectics doesn’t apply to grocery shopping, how can we expect it to apply to political strategy?]

        My point here with regard to the principal contradiction is similar to my discussion of negation of negation–i.e. it is a very useful description of many processes of change, but it is not a law. I can’t think of anything that isn’t composed of opposites, but I can think of situations where there may not be a single principal contradiction.

        As a practical matter I find it useful to follow the popular time management technique of writing down four or five key tasks and trying to stay focussed on these during the day, even as distractions naturally arise. This doesn’t take away from the importance of identifying the key contradiction at any one moment and trying to resolve it. It’s just that occasionally there may be a few contradictions overlapping, like the socks and towels, and they can be dealt with as equal priorities.

        The Principal Contradiction in Our Lives

        As noted in the hot stove example, in many cases our bodies automatically respond to the contradictions we face. This is because we are a well-evolved part of nature. As such, most of our bodily functions are managed without any conscious effort. We don’t have to remember to breathe; our food digests automatically; our heart keeps a steady beat. When our body needs food or water, it lets us know. If something is coming toward our eye, we automatically blink (or if it’s a big object, we duck). Our instinct to survive guides us around lots of pitfalls–we don’t step out into the street in front of moving traffic; if there is a tornado or hurricane coming, we take cover; when it’s cold, we look for warmth and shelter.

        If most of our basic needs are driven by our animal natures, what choices do we have, and how do we make them? Below are listed four fundamental contradictions facing us as human beings in our personal lives, more or less in order of priority. Both as individuals and as a society we have many choices in resolving these contradictions.

        Most of our lives are bound up with resolving these contradictions–staying healthy, holding down a job, finding a place to live, and seeking fulfillment through intimate relations and self expression. This list of contradictions is similar to the psychologist, Abraham Maslow’s, “Hierarchy of Needs.” Maslow listed five needs in his hierarchy, each of which has to be resolved before the next one can be addressed:

        I don’t see any need to debate about whether Maslow’s list is better than list I came up with. Roughly, I would say that Maslow’s first two needs correspond to my first three contradictions and his last three needs correspond to my fourth contradiction. In any case the general idea is that basic material needs have to be addressed before people can move on to developing close human relationships and working for positive social change. It’s difficult for a person who is starving to help other people.

        Hopefully, this short essay has explained the concept of principal contradiction in dialectics. As in most of this web site, the examples have been chosen to show that dialectics applies to all of reality, not just politics, as some people may assume. Besides our daily lives, dialectics definitely does apply to politics as well  to analyze the principal contradiction in society.

        .
        • The Key Contradictions Facing Society as a Whole

          Most of this web site has been apolitical. Dialectics applies to everything, so there is no need to use political examples of dialectical processes. In fact, I have consciously avoided political examples because they can be so controversial.

          However, one of the strengths of dialectics is that it is an analytical tool that helps clarify political forces and the need for alliances and broad strategies. If our goal is to improve human conditions, we should use every tool at our disposal. So let’s see where an analysis of the contradictions facing humanity leads us.


          • 1. Nuclear war – from the standpoint of survival, the greatest immediate danger to the human race is nuclear annihilation. The end of the cold war offerred an opportunity to dismantle nuclear weapons and abolish them forever. Unfortunately, the U.S. has moved in the opposite direction by abrogating the anti-ballistic missile treaty and aggressively pursuing the goal of military supremacy through the star wars missile defense system. Such a plan has only encouraged other countries to continue their nuclear weapons programs. To me it is clear that nuclear war can only result in unthinkable human destruction, without any winners.

            2. Global Warming/Greenhouse Effect – In a very possible worst case scenario the greenhouse effect could escalate in a run-away fashion and destroy all life on earth. Short of that, there is the very high likelihood that global warming will flood all major coastal cities within 100 years if combustion of fossil fuels continues to pour carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at its current rate.

            In his book, Carbon Wars, Jeremy Leggett points out that prior to the industrial revolution there were about 580 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere. Now there are over 750 billion tons, and we are adding about 6 billion tons per year. If we add another 200 billion tons, virtually all scientists agree that the climate will be seriously altered. Beyond that we would be “flirting with ecological catastrophe” (page 59). Unfortunately there are 4,000 billion tons–about 3/4 of it is coal, and the rest is oil and natural gas–in the ground available for our use, so we simply have to leave most of it in the ground or commit planetary suicide. Fortunately solar power and wind are sustainable alternative sources of energy, and hydrogen fuel cells could power automobiles. Therefore, there is no reason for humanity to continue relying on fossil fuels except for the greed and short-sightedness of the oil industry and the politicians they control.

            In my opinion the best book on the subject is Joseph Romm’s Hell and High Water, Harper Collins, NY,2007. Similar to Leggett, Romm points out that the pre-industrial concentration of CO2 was 280 parts per million (ppm). Now we are at 380 ppm and rising about 2-3 ppm per year. The turning point where the polar ice caps will melt is somewhere between 450 and 650 ppm. Only an international campaign to go to plug-in hybrid autos, massive new building codes requiring conservation of energy, and generation of electricity by renewable means can save us–will we act in time???
            There are other possible ecological disasters such as destruction of the ozone layer, bioengineered epidemics, a “silent spring” caused by pesticides, etc., but I think climate change is the most critical at this time.

            3. Rich vs. poor – Today the average incomes in developed countries are 37 times higher than in developing countries according to the World Bank. Forty years ago the figure was 15 times higher. This would not be so worrisome if the poorer countries, and the poor within the U.S. for that matter, were increasing their incomes.

            Unfortunately the trends are not in that direction. The World Bank defines absolute poverty as less than $1 per day (don’t ask me why–that seems awfully low to me). According to their data, such poverty fell from 29.5% of the developing world’s population to 27.3% from 1987 to 1998 (excluding China where statistics are uncertain). Most of the decline came in East Asia; in Latin America the poverty rate increased from 15.3% to 15.6% in the same period, an increase from 64 million to 78 million people. But the absolute poverty line is misleading–there are over 2.8 billion people in the world today living on less than $2 per day, which means they are barely at subsistence. This is nearly half of the world’s 6 billion people. And the poorest of the poor often don’t even make it into these official statistics.

            Now it could be argued that many people live happily outside of the global economy. They don’t need refrigerators, cars, television, and other consumer goods. This is undoubtedly true, but once people see the advantages of hot and cold running water, a warm dry bed to sleep in, a variety of food to eat, television, the internet, etc. it is doubtful that they will choose to live without these luxuries and conveniences.

            Within the United States, the census bureau estimates that about 12% of the population lives below the poverty line, about 20% of children and 25% of people over 65. Of course, poverty level income in the U.S–$18,104 for a family of four–is a small fortune compared to the World Bank’s $1 per day for most of the world. Nonetheless, the glaring disparity of poverty amidst wealth, coupled with historic racial injustice, makes poverty in the U.S. just as volatile an issue as it is in the developing world. If you are homeless and hungry it is no consolation that you live in the wealthiest country on earth.

            If the poor get poorer, or even stay the same, and the rich continue to get richer, the situation will become even more unstable than it already is. Programs of income redistribution such as progressive income taxes and genuine international development aid are needed to prevent an explosion of anger both in the U.S. and throughout the world.

          • Experimenting with biological weapons
          • Refusing to grant inspections of its chemical weapons
          • Opposing the International Criminal Court (1998)
          • Refusing to ratify the Land Mine Treaty (1997)
          • Conducting covert operations against foreign heads of state
          • Blocking the small arms treaty
          • Promoting trade agreements that favor multi-national corporations at the expense of indigenous people

          • Identifying a principal contradiction requires defining a goal. What should our goals as a society be? Addressing basic human needs of health, jobs, housing, and social services (education, transportation, water, sanitation, etc.) are pretty obvious starters. Meeting these needs takes, and will take, a lot of hard work, human ingenuity and organization. For example, providing clean water is a huge issue all around the world that involves scientists, engineers, technicians, construction and maintenance workers, politicians, and the cooperation of all the citizenry of a region. As another example, providing a nutritious food supply is extremely complicated, involving nature’s obstacles such as droughts and freezes, human short-sightedness such as soil or aquifer depletion, and even our instincts, which often tell us to eat foods that are not healthy–doughnuts anyone? In addition the distribution of land and market economic forces often leave out the poor. Without effective government action mass starvation is a serious problem.

          I think most people would agree that we human beings do have the ability to provide clean air, clean water, adequate food and shelter for everyone. The question is how to do it. There are difficult issues of overpopulation, urbanization, inadequate education, and poor public health and disease control, which have to be figured into the solutions. Unfortunately, the goal of meeting basic human needs has often been outweighed by powerful competing goals such as accumulating wealth and power by individuals.

          To choose the principal contradiction facing society as a whole today, we have to select the main goal. Above all the goals already listed, I think that survival of the human race must be our number one goal. Given the objective of promoting human survival, I think the following three issues pose the most serious threats to the human race today.

          Which is the Principal Contradiction?

          On all of the issues listed above –nuclear weapons, global warming, and rich vs. poor– the U.S. government stands as the main obstacle to progress. As noted, the U.S. has overturned the anti-ballistic missile treaty and refused to sign the climate change protocols. In September, 2002, U.S. President Bush openly declared that the U.S. feels it has the right to launch aggressive, pre-emptive strikes–a clear violation of the U.N. Charter, and he did, in fact, attack Iraq without justification in 2003, and continues to occupy the country illegally. In addition some of the unconscionable actions of the U.S. include:

          I feel that this contradiction is the principal one–the U.S. vs. the rest of the world. The mass demonstrations around the world in the face of the U.S. attack on Iraq have begun forging a united peace movement, building its strength against the U.S. war machine. Until we, i.e. the people of the U.S. and the world, get the U.S. government to change its policies, the other contradictions cannot be resolved. It is possible that, like other imperial powers in history, the U.S. will overextend its reach and come to a catastrophic demise. Given the U.S. nuclear arsenal, however, this could be a disaster for the whole world. I hope that those of us who are intent on resolving the contradictions facing the world today are able to peacefully turn the U.S. around, at least to where it accepts its responsibilities as one member of a community of nations.

          The U.S., with its educated population, technological creativity, its diversity as home to a cross section of nationalities, and its history of democratic participation could play a very positive role in a world with a truly federated government, one which controls nuclear weapons, protects the environment and ensures that all humans have their basic needs met.

          Unfortunately, the U.S. government has identified “terrorism” and “evil” as the principal contradiction in the world (or “main enemy” as they would say). Such priorities reflect the U.S. goal of maintaining hegemony internationally. Accordingly, the U.S. is building its star wars program and military arsenal, while continuing arms sales around the world. The current U.S. president does not even pay lip service to the need to reduce fossil fuel use. And, in spite of U.S. rhetoric, neoliberal economic policies have not reduced poverty; such policies oppose trade unions, environmental controls, and other regulatory reforms necessary to improve the quality of life around the world.

          While suicide bombings and other acts of terror are certainly to be condemned, they are basically acts of desperation by people who feel powerless to make changes in more effective ways. Most of the world sees this more clearly than the U.S. general public, many of whom, as of this writing in 2005, still support an unwinnable, never ending “war on terror.” As Indian writer Arundati Roy said, “You can no more eliminate evil from the world than you can make everyone into saints.”

          How to Make a Difference

          Dialectics teaches that there will not be a fundamental change in U.S. policy unless the forces pushing for such a change become powerful enough to overcome the forces supporting the current U.S. policy. Hopefully the many examples in this web site show that a qualitative change can only come about when quantitative changes–bit by bit–build up to a turning point. Doing this will require a movement of many millions of people, conscious that the government is headed in the wrong direction, and willing to push it in the direction of peace, environmental sustainability, and social justice.

          Change requires more than electoral politics–civil rights groups, peace groups, unions, women’s groups, gay/lesbian/transgender groups, disability rights groups, environmental groups, senior’s groups, supporters of public schools, advocates of national health care, neighborhood activists, and many more have to build a movement capable of changing the course of U.S. politics.

          Change does require electoral politics as well, however. The Democratic Party, while not at all pure in its efforts for disarmament, environmental controls, and combating poverty, does promote more reasonable policies than the Republican Party, which currently controls the Congress and the White House. The Democratic Party has a Progressive Caucus in Congress. Voices like Congresswoman Barbara Lee stand against the U.S. war drive. In California, the California Democratic Council is a coalition of Democratic Clubs which strives to be the “conscience of the Democratic Party.” For more information see the CDC Web Site.

          Politicians cannot be expected to lead the movement for change. They will take action when the movement is strong enough to force them. Otherwise they will feel that they are out on a limb without enough support for qualitative change.

          I don’t support efforts at creating a third party in the U.S. at this time. Such efforts, in the U.S. “winner take all” electoral system generally lead to electing Republicans. The last time a third party won national elections was on the eve of the U.S. Civil War when Lincoln won with the fledgling Republican Party with less than 40% of the vote in 1860. I feel it makes more sense to run progressive candidates in the Democratic Primary; if they win, go all out for them in November. If they don’t, hold your nose and vote for the Democrat over the Republican (in most cases).

          Demonstrations, letter writing campaigns, boycotts, strikes, civil disobedience, media campaigns, and electoral work are all part of the process. The key is to keep “your eye on the prize”, i.e. to change U.S. policy with regard to nuclear war, global warming, and poverty. All progressives need to unite in these efforts.

          People all around the world can help bring this change about, because the U.S. cannot survive as a complete outcast in the world. Those of us in the United States have a special obligation to turn our government around since we are in the best position to do this.

          Dialectics doesn’t provide a blueprint about how to make the necessary changes, but it does show that change is possible, and inevitable. By building the forces that can prevent nuclear war, stop global warming, and promote social justice we can all build a better future. If these problems are solved, we can all move on to new principal contradictions–there are no shortage of problems to solve. Wouldn’t it be great if the principal contradictions in the world were around questions of art, music, or sports? Actually, in the case of the World Cup, some people may feel that is the principal contradiction already! :-)

          .
          5.What does dialectics have to do with communism?

          • Nuclear war – Are we going to blow ourselves to bits rather than build an international federation to ensure peace?
          • Poverty – Instead of moving toward a world without poverty, the conditions and desperation of the dispossessed are increasing. And desperate people will do desperate things. How will this contradiction be resolved?
          • Health care should be a human right, but many people die of preventable diseases.
          • Equal educational opportunity should be a goal, but much is needed to improve and strengthen public education; indeed right wing forces are out to destroy it through voucher programs.
          • Corporate responsibility is still the law under capitalism – corporations are required to protect the environment, ensure safe working conditions, pay fair wages, and even to audit their books honestly for their own stockholders (!) How do we ensure that the government controls the corporations rather than vice-versa?
          • The criminal justice system in the U.S. is biased against minorities. The death penalty is especially unjust.
          • The U.S. has very little citizen participation in government; without an active citizenry, democracy is at the mercy of corporate lobbyists.
          • And many more issues. . .


          • Not a Thing?

          The short answer to the above question is “nothing”. Understanding dialectics does not lead to any particular political or economic viewpoint. Hopefully reading the first four pages of this web site have made this clear. Dialectics does make some assertions. For example, dialectics insists that everything changes through the movement of opposing forces. Such a description is certainly true of a competitive capitalist economy. Likewise contradictions and conflict certainly continued under socialism, with the dramatic fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 serving as a good example of quantitative change leading to qualitative change.

          A Closer Look

          On the other hand there is no question that the dialectical materialist outlook is linked closely in the public’s mind with communism. Some readers of this web site have dismissed the whole concept of dialectics expressed here as communist propaganda, even though, until this page, there has been very little material related to economics, politics, or socialism.

          So what is the connection? The answer is that the creators of the dialectical materialist outlook were Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the writers of the Communist Manifesto, and chief proponents of the socialist movement that seized state power in Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, and many other places. Even the United States, that bastion of capitalism, has had many converts to Marxism in the past 100 years; for example, the Communist Party was quite influential in the 1930s, and a “New Left” sprang into life at the time of the anti-Vietnam war movement.

          Marx and Engels used dialectical materialism to analyze society. They believed that the inherent conflicts within capitalism–i.e. the dialectical contradictions–would lead to a revolutionary seizure of power by the workers. On the last page of Das Kapital, Volume 1, Marx describes the death of capitalism, saying, “The expropriators are expropriated. The capitalist mode of appropriation, the result of the capitalist mode of production, produced capitalist private property. This is the first negation of individual private property. . .But capitalist production begets with the inexorability of a law of Nature, its own negation. It is the negation of negation.” (Das Kapital, Gateway publishers, Chicago, 1962, page 356)

          While Marx’s biting critique of capitalism, fiery rhetoric and grand vision of a world with “co-operation and the possession in common of the land and of the means of production” (same page cited above) inspired generations of idealistic activists, it has not withstood the test of history. The question is–why not? Is the problem with dialectical materialism as a philosophy, or is there a problem with Marx’s economic theory?

          Obviously to those who have visited the other pages of this web site, the argument here is that the problem with Marxism is not in dialectics, but in economics. Marxist economics is a complicated subject with lots of debates that have gone on for many decades. How can we get to the root of the problem without putting you, the reader, through voluminous research?

          Fortunately, the 20th Century, as noted, was full of socialist revolutions and many years of experimentation. From this experience it is easier to see the pitfalls that Marx had not anticipated.

          One important clue in science that indicates that a person is on the right track, is when he or she accurately predicts what is going to happen. In the case of socialism, one person who accurately predicted that socialism would fail was a German economist, Ludwig von Mises (there were several others but von Mises was the most prominent).

          In his 1922 book, Socialism, von Mises argued that people are interested in “well-being and happiness” and that “The discussion always returns to the same point, the fundamental question whether the socialist order of society promises a higher productivity than capitalism.” (quotes are from the 1951 Yale University Press edition) Writing at a time of overwhelming support for social democracy and/or communism in Germany, von Mises states, “The world inclines to Socialism because the great majority of the people want it. They want it because they believe that Socialism will guarantee a higher standard of welfare. The loss of this conviction would signify the end of Socialism.” So what is his case?

          The Calculation Problem

          Von Mises grants that “socialism is one of the most ambitious creations of the human spirit,” but quickly goes on to argue that the essential flaw of socialism is that, without markets, “socialism lacks the ability to calculate [prices] and therefore to proceed rationally”. “No individual could so discriminate between the infinite number of alternative methods of production that he could make direct judgments of their relative value without auxiliary calculations. . . .Money calculation provides a guide amid the bewildering throng of economic possibilities.” “With the best will in the world” socialism will be helpless, he argues. “The problem is not deciding what to produce–any socialist society can do that. The problem is to decide how to use the existing means of production most effectively to produce the desired goods. This requires economic calculation.”

          Marxists generally respond that prices should simply be set to equal costs. But how do you calculate costs without competitive markets to set prices? In Marxist terms, how do you calculate the socially necessary labor time to make a product? Hand-woven clothes are obviously a lot more labor intensive than machine made clothes, but is it really necessary to make all clothing by hand? Or, what if a factory is operating on outmoded equipment, or under poor management–is it fair to charge consumers based on their excessive cost?

          Under a market system, the price is not really verified until someone buys the product. In that way, producers who have used inefficient production methods will not be able to compete, and will be forced to change or go out of business. Under socialism, or with monopolies under capitalism (dare we say Microsoft?), prices do not accurately reflect socially necessary costs. Without rational methods of economic calculation, it can even happen that worthless products are produced; the spectacle of a Soviet shoe factory that produced thousands of terrible quality shoes that piled up on shelves unsold comes to mind here.

          In his book summarizing the history of the debate, From Marx to Mises, David Ramsay Steele (Open Court Publishing Co., LaSalle Illinois, 1992) argues that Marxists seem “unaware that for the whole economy there would be billions of combinations of millions of projects, not to mention an infinity of different precisely defined ways in which each project could be executed.” (page 125)

          Bureaucracy and Decision Making

          Not only would a socialist system be unable to allocate its resources efficiently, the decision making process itself would be a big problem. Steele says, “Nothing could be further from the aspirations of Marx and Engels than an oppressive state or a meddlesome bureaucracy, but their commitment to society-wide comprehensive industrial planning requires that the communist administration be an omnipotent state.” (page 316)

          Steele’s argument is echoed by William Mandel, for many years the Soviet affairs commentator on KPFA radio. Mandel wrote in the October, 1991 KPFA folio, “What Marx failed to see was that the relatively democratic procedure of the market, stimulating hundreds of thousands (or millions) of owners to produce cheaper or better goods, would have to be replaced by the bureaucratic decisions of government planners, inevitably far fewer in number and therefore less democratic.”

          One alternative to a huge bureaucracy is for a socialist society to try a dictator. For example William Mandel recounts that “In the 30s, Stalin would personally phone every night each of the score of the largest mines and factories in the country, and ask how many tons of coal, pig iron, and steel, how many tractors and how many trucks have been produced that day.” Such micromanagement of an advanced industrial economy today is simply out of the question.

          One puzzle about socialism is resolved in a 1940 book by Trygve J.B. Hoff, Economic Calculation in the Socialist Society. Like von Mises, Hoff was able to accurately anticipate future events. Hoff argued that a socialist society can be more effective than a capitalist society in certain ways because it can marshall all of its forces to achieve limited goals. This explains how the Soviet Union was able to defeat Hitler and launch Sputnik, but could not compete with capitalism on the level of consumer goods. Similarly Cuba has great health care, education, and sports/cultural programs but is also severely lacking providing what we think of as basic necessities–a variety of food, toilet paper, pens, plastic bags, etc.

          This essay is probably too short to convince any committed socialist that Marx’s vision was fatally flawed. But this essay is really aimed at those who are under the impression that dialectical materialism is some kind of communist plot. Dialectical materialism is a powerful philosophy–so powerful that its practitioners led half the world’s population in revolutions. Now that history has shown that the socialist economies they created could not compete with capitalist economies, its time to use dialectical materialism to analyze our present economic reality and see how it needs to changed for the better.

          The downfall of socialism was not the fault of dialectics. It was the contradictions within socialism–particularly its inability to produce goods in a rational and efficient way–that led to its collapse.

          Back to the Dialectics of Capitalism

          So where does that leave us? What about capitalism? Is capitalism the the best that we can hope for? Dialectics does not give us a magic answer to this question, but dialectics does show that change is a certainty, the real question is how can we change capitalism for the better. We can simply look at what is happening in the world today to see that contradictions abound. The world is nowhere near the “end of history” in the sense that we have not developed a stable and sustainable world political economy.

          One big problem for capitalism is the environment. In his book, Eco-Economy, Lester R. Brown quotes Oystein Dahle, retired vice-president of Esso for Norway and the North Sea, who says, “Socialism collapsed because it did not allow prices to tell the economic truth. Capitalism may collapse because it does not allow prices to tell the ecological truth.” (Earth Policy Institute, W.W. Norton & Co, 2001, page 23) Most of the world is ready to tax fossil fuels to head off the impending disaster of global warming, but the U.S., with an administration dominated by oil interests, is not. The melting of Greenland’s glacier would raise the ocean level by 7 meters, an unthinkable disaster for which the world would not be likely to forgive the U.S. Will the U.S. catch on? How will this catastrophe be averted–or will it? (Note that an increase in gas taxes would not necessarily be a tax increase at all; the money raised could simply be refunded through reduced income taxes.)

          The environment is just one of the many contradictions facing capitalism today. Here are a few more that could explode in a dialectical breaking point at any time:


          The only way these issues will be resolved is by a strong progressive movement supported by millions of people. Dialectics doesn’t provide any blueprint, but it does show that change is possible, and inevitable. The question is will it be change for the better or for the worse–you can help decide.

          (Edited  and slightly modified varsion  original published essays at  http://home.igc.org  and Last updated June, 2008 )

        • 4.What is the Principal Contradiction?

      • Dialectics-It’s all Greek to Me

    • What Good is Knowing Dialectics?

Send article as PDF to PDF Printer

4 Responses to “What the Heck is Dialectics? Part-II”

  1. Wilmington says:
    March 23, 2010 at 7:41 am

    Hey mate, greetings from Germany !

  2. internet banking legal issues says:
    May 13, 2010 at 10:53 pm

    Thanks for sharing this helpful info!

  3. Landscaping Wilmington Delaware says:
    July 5, 2010 at 3:07 am

    Thanks for the advice. Will put it to work. Tom

  4. Alprazolam no prescription says:
    July 11, 2010 at 3:01 am

    Here’s a comment. Great advice =) Thanks

Leave a Reply