I wanted for a long time to reach for the idea of dialectical materialism, but I was busy.
Now I finally found time to do great research on the idea of dialectical materialism, based on Karl Marx's view of Hegel's dialectical argument.
It might be difficult to understand at first, but later I will follow up with example which makes it easy to understand.
Lets first explore what is dialectical argument.
Dialectical argument is based on law of non-contradiction.
It is made of:
1. Thesis
2. Antithesis
3. Synthesis
Thesis is the first position, original position.
Antithesis presents contradiction to thesis.
If antithesis is true, the thesis is false.
If antithesis is false, thesis stands true.
Then a synthesis happens, where either antithesis is negated either thesis is negated.
If antithesis is negated, thesis stands true.
If thesis is negated, original position is false, which gives birth to new position different from the original one.
Synthesis either maintains original thesis either creates new thesis which is different from the original one.
Antithesis is negation of thesis.
Negation of antithesis is negation of negation.
So, by simple deduction, synthesis is one of these:
1. Negation of the negation while maintaining thesis
2. Negation of negation by changing thesis, creating new thesis
3. Negation of thesis while upholding antithesis, where antithesis becomes new thesis
Lets now look at the example, and how dialectical materialism sees capitalism.
Capitalists are seeking to get as rich as possible.
Workers are also trying to get as rich as possible.
There are limited resources in society.
Therefore, the more capitalists get rich, the less wealth is there left for workers.
1. Worker's wealth is thesis
2. Capitalist's wealth is antithesis, which increases at the expense of worker's wealth, which means at the expense of thesis.
One cannot increase without other decreasing.
Antithesis cannot increase without thesis decreasing, because they are in contradiction.
The synthesis only has 3 options:
1. Negation of worker's wealth, so abolishment of capitalism.
2. Negation of capitalist's wealth, so abolishment of capitalism.
3. Balance between capitalist's wealth and worker's wealth which makes it possible to maintain thesis and antithesis.
Karl Marx argues that both 1 and 2 lead to Communism, as it is not possible to abolish worker's wealth or capitalist's wealth without abolishing capitalism.
While Karl Marx concedes that option 3 maintains capitalism, he argues that option 3 is much harder to achieve than either option 1 or option 2.
This is because option 3 is the only thing maintaining capitalism in existence, and both workers and capitalists are actively working to abolish option 3 in their favor.
Then follows the famous negation of the negation.
Since survival of society is negated by its own contradiction which is capitalist's wealth being contradictive to worker's wealth, one must negate this negation, which means to negate capitalist's wealth, to produce a new thesis, a new society, a communist society that is not negated by any internal contradiction, where worker's wealth is not negated but upheld.
This new society must not have capitalist's wealth, therefore must negate capitalist's wealth.
Marx argues that crisis in capitalism is caused when capitalist's wealth prevails over worker's wealth, or when worker's wealth prevails over capitalist's wealth.
Since its impossible to keep them in balance all the time, crisis happens often which shakes foundations of society.
New society, society without contradiction, can only be society which is neither capitalist, nor feudal nor slavery.
So it must be society which either always maintains balance between capitalists and workers (government regulated economy)
Or
It must be society without capitalist's wealth, which is Communism.
Since government regulated economy is, by nature, difficult to keep in check, since it often either leans to workers or to capitalists, it is not a good synthesis.
This leaves only Communism as the option.
Communism must, therefore be society without contradiction.
It must be a society entirely ruled by workers, as it cannot be a society entirely ruled by capitalists.
This means that workers dictate the distribution of means of production and of wealth, as opposed to capitalists dictating it.
