Dialectical materialism is amaterialist theory based upon the writings ofKarl Marx andFriedrich Engels that has found widespread applications in a variety of philosophical disciplines ranging fromphilosophy of history tophilosophy of science.[1][2] As a materialist philosophy,Marxist dialectics emphasizes the importance of real-world conditions and the presence of functional contradictions within and among social relations, which derive from, but are not limited to, the contradictions that occur insocial class,labour economics, andsocioeconomic interactions.[3] Within Marxism, acontradiction is a relationship in which two forces oppose each other, leading to mutual development.[4]: 256
In contrast with the idealist perspective ofHegelian dialectics, the materialist perspective of Marxist dialectics emphasizes that contradictions in material phenomena could be resolved with dialectical analysis, from which is synthesized the solution that resolves the contradiction, whilst retaining the essence of the phenomena. Marx proposed that the most effective solution to the problems caused by contradiction was to address the contradiction and then rearrange the systems ofsocial organization that are the root of the problem.[5]
Dialectical materialism recognises the evolution of the natural world, and thus the emergence of new qualities ofbeing human and of human existence. Engels used themetaphysical insight that the higher level of human existence emerges from and is rooted in the lower level of human existence. He believed that the higher level of being is a new order with irreducible laws, and that evolution is governed by laws of development, which reflect the basic properties ofmatter in motion.[6][7]
In the 20th century, the revolutionary MarxistVladimir Lenin proposed his own interpretation of Marxist dialectics, which took an essential place among the views and doctrines ofLeninism and was later propagated by such his followers asLeon Trotsky. Since the 1930s, aMarxist-Leninist reading of dialectical materialism introduced by such leaders ofcommunist states asJoseph Stalin (StalinistSoviet Union) andMao Zedong (Maoist China) set forth the official formulations on dialectical materialism andhistorical materialism, which were taught in state systems of education. In the West, different approaches towards Marxist dialectics were proposed by such authors ofWestern Marxism asGyörgy Lukács andSlavoj Žižek.
The termdialectical materialism was coined in 1887 byJoseph Dietzgen, a socialist who corresponded with Marx, during and after the failed1848 German Revolution.[8][9] Casual mention of the term "dialectical materialism" is also found in the biographyFrederick Engels, by philosopherKarl Kautsky,[10] written in 1899. Marx himself had talked about the "materialist conception of history", which was later referred to as "historical materialism" by Engels. Engels "substantially developed materialist dialectics" in his incomplete 1883 workDialectics of Nature.[11]Georgi Plekhanov, the father of Russian Marxism, first used the term "dialectical materialism" in 1891 in his writings onGeorg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Marx.[12] Stalin further delineated and defined dialectical and historical materialism as the world outlook ofMarxism–Leninism, and as a method to study society and its history.[13]
In contrast to the conventionalHegelian dialectic of the day, which emphasized theidealist observation that human experience is dependent on the mind's perceptions, Marx developedMarxist dialectics, which emphasized thematerialist view that the world of the concrete shapessocioeconomic interactions and that those in turn determinesociopolitical reality.[14]
Whereas some Hegelians blamedreligious alienation (estrangement from the traditional comforts of religion) forsocietal ills, Marx and Engels concluded that alienation from economic and politicalautonomy, coupled withexploitation andpoverty, was the real culprit.[15]
In keeping with dialectical ideas, Marx and Engels thus created an alternative theory, not only of why the world is the way it is but also of which actions people should take to make it the way it ought to be. InTheses on Feuerbach (1845), Marx wrote a famous quote, "The philosophers have onlyinterpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is tochange it."[14] Dialectical materialism is thus closely related to Marx's and Engels'shistorical materialism (and has sometimes been viewed assynonymous with it). Marx rejectedFichte's language of "thesis, antithesis, synthesis".[16]
Dialectical materialism is an aspect of the broader subject ofmaterialism, which asserts the primacy of the material world: in short, matter precedes thought. Materialism is arealist philosophy of science,[17] which holds that the world is material; that all phenomena in the universe consist of "matter in motion," wherein all things are interdependent and interconnected and develop according tonatural law; that the world exists outside consciousness and independently of people's perception of it; that thought is a reflection of the material world in the brain, and that the world isin principle knowable.
Marx criticized classical materialism as another idealist philosophy—idealist because of its transhistorical understanding of material contexts. The Young HegelianLudwig Feuerbach had rejected Hegel's idealistic philosophy and advocated materialism.[18] Despite being strongly influenced by Feuerbach,[18] Marx rejected Feuerbach's version of materialism (anthropological materialism) as inconsistent.[19] The writings of Engels, especiallyAnti-Dühring (1878) andDialectics of Nature (1875–82), were the source of the main doctrines of dialectical materialism.[16]
The concept of dialectical materialism emerges from statements by Marx in the second edition postface to hismagnum opus,Das Kapital. There Marx says he intends to use Hegelian dialectics but in revised form. He defends Hegel against those who view him as a "dead dog" and then says, "I openly avowed myself as the pupil of that mighty thinker Hegel".[20] Marx credits Hegel with "being the first to present [dialectic's] form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner". But he then criticizes Hegel for turning dialectics upside down: "With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell.".[21][22]
Marx's criticism of Hegel asserts that Hegel's dialectics go astray by dealing with ideas, with the human mind. Hegel's dialectic, Marx says, inappropriately concerns "the process of the human brain"; it focuses on ideas. Hegel's thought is in fact sometimes calleddialectical idealism, and Hegel himself is counted among a number of other philosophers known as theGerman idealists. Marx, on the contrary, believed that dialectics should deal not with themental world of ideas but with "the material world", the world of production and other economic activity.[21] For Marx, a contradiction can be solved by a desperate struggle to change the social world. This was a very important transformation because it allowed him to move dialectics out of the contextual subject of philosophy and into the study of social relations based on the material world.[23]
For Marx, human history cannot be fitted into any neata priori schema. He explicitly rejects the idea of Hegel's followers that history can be understood as "a person apart, a metaphysical subject of which real human individuals are but the bearers".[24] To interpret history as though previous social formations have somehow been aiming themselves toward the present state of affairs is "to misunderstand the historical movement by which the successive generations transformed the results acquired by the generations that preceded them".[25] Marx's rejection of this sort ofteleology was one reason for his enthusiastic (though not entirely uncritical) reception ofCharles Darwin'stheory of natural selection.[26]
For Marx, dialectics is not a formula for generating predetermined outcomes but is a method for theempirical study of social processes in terms of interrelations, development, and transformation. In his introduction to the Penguin edition of Marx'sCapital,Ernest Mandel writes, "When the dialectical method is applied to the study of economic problems, economic phenomena are not viewed separately from each other, by bits and pieces, but in their inner connection as an integrated totality, structured around, and by, a basic predominant mode of production."[27]
Marx's own writings are almost exclusively concerned with understanding human history in terms of systemic processes, based onmodes of production (broadly speaking, the ways in which societies are organized to employ their technological powers to interact with their material surroundings). This is calledhistorical materialism. More narrowly, within the framework of this general theory of history, most of Marx's writing is devoted to an analysis of the specific structure and development of thecapitalist economy.
For his part, Engels applies a "dialectical" approach to the natural world in general, arguing that contemporary science is increasingly recognizing the necessity of viewing natural processes in terms ofinterconnectedness, development, and transformation. Some scholars have doubted that Engels' "dialectics of nature" is a legitimate extension of Marx's approach to social processes.[28][29][30][31] Other scholars have argued that despite Marx's insistence that humans are natural beings in an evolving, mutual relationship with the rest of nature, Marx's own writings pay inadequate attention to the ways in which human agency is constrained by such factors as biology, geography, and ecology.[32][33]
Engels postulated three laws of dialectics from his reading of Hegel'sScience of Logic.[34] Engels elucidated these laws as thematerialist dialectic in his workDialectics of Nature:
The law of the unity and conflict of opposites
The law of the passage of quantitative changes into qualitative changes
The law of the negation of the negation
The first law, which originates with the ancientIonian philosopherHeraclitus,[35] can be clarified through the following examples:
For example, in biological evolution the formation of new forms of life occurs precisely through the unity and struggle of opposites in heredity and variability. In physical processes the nature of light was explained precisely by means of the unity and struggle of opposites appearing, for example, as corpuscular and wave properties; this, moreover, cleared the path for a “drama of ideas” in physical science, whereby the opposition and synthesis of corpuscular and wave theories characterized scientific progress. The most basic expression of the unity and struggle of opposites in the world of commodity capitalism is that of use value and value; the most highly developed oppositions in capitalism are the working class and the bourgeoisie,
— The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1979), Unity and Struggle of Opposites –Web page
The first law was seen by both Hegel andVladimir Lenin as the central feature of a dialectical understanding:
It is in this dialectic as it is here understood, that is, in the grasping of oppositions in their unity, or of the positive in the negative, that speculative thought consists. It is the most important aspect of dialectic.
The splitting of a single whole and the cognition of its contradictory parts is the essence (one of the "essentials", one of the principal, if not the principal, characteristics or features) of dialectics. That is precisely how Hegel, too, puts the matter.
— Lenin's Collected Works: Volume 38, p. 359: On the question of dialectics.
The second law Hegel took from Ancient Greek philosophers, notably theparadox of the heap, and explanation byAristotle,[36] and it is equated with what scientists callphase transitions. It may be traced to the ancient Ionian philosophers, particularlyAnaximenes[37] from whom Aristotle, Hegel, and Engels inherited the concept. For all these authors, one of the main illustrations is the phase transitions of water. There has also been an effort to apply this mechanism to social phenomena, whereby population increases result in changes in social structure. The law of the passage of quantitative changes into qualitative changes can also be applied to the process ofsocial change andclass conflict.[38]
The third law, "negation of the negation", originated with Hegel. Although Hegel coined the term "negation of the negation", it gained its fame from Marx's using it inCapital. There Marx wrote this: "The [death] knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated. The capitalist mode of appropriation, the result of the capitalist mode of production, produces 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 [this new negation] is the negation of negation."[39]
Z. A. Jordan notes, "Engels made constant use of the metaphysical insight that the higher level of existence emerges from and has its roots in the lower; that the higher level constitutes a new order of being with its irreducible laws; and that this process of evolutionary advance is governed by laws of development which reflect basic properties of 'matter in motion as a whole'."[6]
After reading Hegel'sScience of Logic in 1914, Lenin made some brief notes outlining three "elements" of logic.[40] They are:
The determination of the concept out of itself [the thing itself must be considered in its relations and in its development];
The contradictory nature of the thing itself (the other of itself), the contradictory forces and tendencies in each phenomenon;
The union of analysis and synthesis.
Lenin develops these in a further series of notes, and appears to argue that "the transition of quantity into quality and vice versa" is an example of the unity and opposition of opposites expressed tentatively as "not only the unity of opposites but the transitions of every determination, quality, feature, side, property into every other [into its opposite?]."
In his essay "On the Question of Dialectics", Lenin stated, "Development is the 'struggle' of opposites."He stated, "The unity (coincidence, identity, equal action) of opposites is conditional, temporary, transitory, relative. The struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute, just as development and motion are absolute."[41]
'Matter disappears' means that the limit within which we have hitherto known matter disappears, and that our knowledge is penetrating deeper; properties of matter are disappearing that formerly seemed absolute, immutable, and primary, and which are now revealed to be relative and characteristic only of certain states of matter. For thesole 'property' of matter, with whose recognition philosophical materialism is bound up, is the property ofbeing an objective reality, of existing outside of the mind.
Lenin was developing the work of Engels, who said that "with each epoch-making discovery, even in the sphere ofnatural science, materialism has to change its form".[42] One of Lenin's challenges was distancing materialism, as a viable philosophical outlook, from the "vulgar materialism" expressed in the statement "the brain secretes thought in the same way as the liver secretes bile" (attributed to 18th-century physicianPierre Jean Georges Cabanis); "metaphysical materialism" (matter composed of immutable particles); and 19th-century "mechanical materialism" (matter as random molecules interacting per the laws of mechanics). The philosophic solution that Lenin (and Engels) proposed was "dialectical materialism", wherein matter is defined asobjective reality, theoretically consistent with (new) developments occurring in the sciences.
Lenin reassessed Feuerbach's philosophy and concluded that it was in line with dialectical materialism.[19][dubious –discuss]
It is the task of science and technology to make matter subject to man, together with space and time, which are inseparable from matter. True, there are certain idealist books—not of a clerical character, but philosophical ones—wherein you can read that time and space are categories of our minds, that they result from the requirements of our thinking, and that nothing actually corresponds to them in reality. But it is difficult to agree with this view. If any idealist philosopher, instead of arriving in time to catch the 9pm train, should turn up two minutes late, he would see the tail of the departing train and would be convinced by his own eyes that time and space are inseparable from material reality. The task is to diminish this space, to overcome it, to economise time, to prolong human life, to register past time, to raise life to a higher level and enrich it. This is the reason for the struggle with space and time, at the basis of which lies the struggle to subject matter to man—matter, which constitutes the foundation not only of everything that really exists, but also of all imagination ... Every science is an accumulation of knowledge, based on experience relating to matter, to its properties; an accumulation of generalised understanding of how to subject this matter to the interests and needs of man.[43]
In his bookIn Defence of Marxism,Leon Trotsky defended the dialectical method ofscientific socialism during the factional schisms within the American Trotskyist movement in the period 1939–40. Trotsky viewed dialectics as an essential method of analysis to discernclass nature of the Soviet Union. Specifically, he described scientific socialism as "the conscious expression of the unconscious historical process; namely, the instinctive and elemental drive of the proletariat to reconstruct society on communist beginnings".[44]
György Lukács, Minister of Culture in the briefBéla Kun government of theHungarian Soviet Republic (1919), publishedHistory and Class Consciousness (1923), in which he defineddialectical materialism as the knowledge of society as a whole, knowledge which, in itself, was theclass consciousness of theproletariat. In the first chapter "What is Orthodox Marxism?", Lukács definedorthodoxy as fidelity to the "Marxist method", not fidelity to "dogmas":
Orthodox Marxism, therefore, does not imply the uncritical acceptance of the results of Marx's investigations. It is not the "belief" in this or that thesis, nor theexegesis of a "sacred" book. On the contrary, orthodoxy refers exclusively to method. It is the scientific conviction that dialectical materialism is the road to truth and that its methods can be developed, expanded, and deepened, only along the lines laid down by its founders. (§1)
In his later works and actions, Lukács became a leader ofDemocratic Marxism. He modified many of his formulations of his 1923 works and went on to develop a Marxistontology and played an active role in democratic movements in Hungary in 1956 and the 1960s. He and his associates became sharply critical of the formulation of dialectical materialism in theSoviet Union that was exported to those countries under its control. In the 1960s, his associates became known as theBudapest School.
Lukács, in his philosophical criticism ofMarxist revisionism, proposed an intellectual return to the Marxist method. So didLouis Althusser, who later defined Marxism andpsychoanalysis as "conflictual sciences",[45] stating that political factions and revisionism are inherent toMarxist theory and political praxis, because dialectical materialism is the philosophic product of class struggle:
For this reason, the task of orthodox Marxism, its victory over Revisionism andutopianism can never mean the defeat, once and for all, of false tendencies. It is an ever-renewed struggle against the insidious effects ofbourgeois ideology on the thought of the proletariat. Marxist orthodoxy is no guardian of traditions, it is the eternally vigilant prophet proclaiming the relation between the tasks of the immediate present and the totality of the historical process. (§5)
...the premise of dialectical materialism is, we recall: 'It is not men's consciousness that determines their existence, but, on the contrary, their social existence that determines their consciousness'.... Only when the core of existence stands revealed as a social process can existence be seen as the product, albeit the hitherto unconscious product, of human activity. (§5)
Philosophically aligned with Marx is the criticism of theindividualist, bourgeois philosophy of thesubject, which is founded upon the voluntary andconscious subject. Against said ideology is the primacy of social relations. Existence—and thus the world—is the product of human activity, but this can be seen only by accepting the primacy of social process on individual consciousness. This type of consciousness is an effect of ideologicalmystification.
At the 5th Congress of theCommunist International (July 1924),Grigory Zinoviev formally denounced Lukács's heterodox definition of Orthodox Marxism as exclusively derived from fidelity to the "Marxist method", and not to Communist party dogmas; and denounced the philosophical developments of the German Marxist theoristKarl Korsch.
This sectionneeds expansion. You can help byadding to it.(March 2025)
Slavoj Žižek proposed a new approach towards dialectical materialism as a "radical attempt to ground subjectivity qua subjectivity into objectivity — not merely find the hidden 'objective reality' of thought."[46] In his approach, he refused "to rule out the reference to Stalin's Dialectical and Historical Materialism (1938) as a provocation," and his views have ambiguous relations to the writings of Engels and Stalin. "On the one hand, the birth of the Symbolic from the Real without the intermediary of a socially shared space bears a strong resemblance to the emergence of universal human history from matter in motion, histomat from diamat." On the other hand, Žižek believes that what makes his approach essentially materialist is the denial of totality as opposite to Stalinist dialectics which rely on considering history and society as totalities, unified wholes.[47]
For Zižek, 'the Other' (whether the Symbolic Order, or a political regime) never 'exists' as the fully consistent whole that subjects imagine, as they shape their identities in relation to it. This means that society, history and culture ultimately always depend for their illusory 'existence' as apparent wholes on the (unconscious) beliefs of subjects in them. This truth is registered in a series of 'material' inconsistencies: the way ideologies have to posit enemies 'supposed to enjoy' our difficulties, and to rest at their heart on sublime Ideas like 'the Nation', which no one can directly say what their content is. Thus, Žižek's 'dialectical materialism' is ultimately the doctrine that 'the Other does not exist'.[47]
InOn Contradiction (1937),Mao Zedong outlined a version of dialectical materialism that subsumed two of Engels's three principal laws of dialectics, "the transformation of quantity into quality" and "the negation of the negation" as sub-laws (and not principal laws of their own) of the first law, "the unity and interpenetration of opposites".
In his 1947 articleNew Life, Ho Chi Minh described the dialectical relationship between the old and the new in building society, stating:[48]
Not everything old must be abandoned. We do not have to reinvent everything. What is old but bad must be abandoned. What is old but troublesome must be corrected appropriately. What is old but good must be further developed. What is new but good must be done.
Historian of scienceLoren Graham has detailed at length the role played by dialectical materialism in the Soviet Union in disciplines throughout thenatural andsocial sciences. He has concluded that, despite theLysenko period in genetics and constraints on free inquiry imposed by political authorities, dialectical materialism had a positive influence on the work of many Soviet scientists.[49]
Someevolutionary biologists, such asRichard Lewontin andStephen Jay Gould, have tried to employ dialectical materialism in their approach. They view dialectics as playing a precautionary heuristic role in their work. Lewontin's perspective offers the following idea:
Dialectical materialism is not, and never has been, a programmatic method for solving particular physical problems. Rather, a dialectical analysis provides an overview and a set of warning signs against particular forms of dogmatism and narrowness of thought. It tells us, "Remember that history may leave an important trace. Remember that being and becoming are dual aspects of nature. Remember that conditions change and that the conditions necessary to the initiation of some process may be destroyed by the process itself. Remember to pay attention to real objects in time and space and not lose them in utterly idealized abstractions. Remember that the qualitative effects of context and interaction may be lost when phenomena are isolated". And above all else, "Remember that all the other caveats are only reminders and warning signs whose application to different circumstances of the real world is contingent."[50][51]
Gould shared similar views regarding a heuristic role for dialectical materialism. He wrote that:
...dialectical thinking should be taken more seriously by Western scholars, not discarded because some nations of the second world have constructed a cardboard version as an official political doctrine.[52]
...when presented as guidelines for a philosophy of change, not as dogmatic precepts true by fiat, the three classical laws of dialectics embody a holistic vision that views change as interaction among components of complete systems and sees the components themselves not as a priori entities, but as both products and inputs to the system. Thus, the law of "interpenetrating opposites" records the inextricable interdependence of components: the "transformation of quantity to quality" defends a systems-based view of change that translates incremental inputs into alterations of state, and the "negation of negation" describes the direction given to history because complex systems cannot revert exactly to previous states.[53]
This heuristic was also applied to the theory ofpunctuated equilibrium proposed by Gould andNiles Eldredge. They wrote that "history, as Hegel said, moves upward in a spiral of negations", and that "punctuated equilibria is a model for discontinuous tempos of change (in) the process of speciation and the deployment of species in geological time."[54] They noted that "the law of transformation of quantity into quality... holds that a new quality emerges in a leap as the slow accumulation of quantitative changes, long resisted by a stable system, finally forces it rapidly from one state into another", a phenomenon described in some disciplines as aparadigm shift. Apart from the commonly cited example of water turning to steam with increased temperature, Gould and Eldredge noted another analogy ininformation theory, "with its jargon of equilibrium, steady state, and homeostasis maintained bynegative feedback", and "extremely rapid transitions that occur withpositive feedback".[55]
Lewontin, Gould, and Eldredge were thus more interested in dialectical materialism as a heuristic than a dogmatic form of 'truth' or a statement of their politics. Nevertheless, they found a readiness for critics to "seize upon" key statements[56] and portray punctuated equilibrium, and exercises associated with it, such as public exhibitions, as a "Marxist plot".[57]
In 1972, China'sCultural Revolution slowed down and scientific research restarted.Astrophysicist andcosmologistFang Lizhi found an opportunity to read some recent astrophysics papers in western journals, and soon wrote his first paper on cosmology, "A Cosmological Solution in Scalar-tensor Theory with Mass and Blackbody Radiation", which was published on the journalWu Li (Physics), Vol. 1, 163 (1972). This was the first modern cosmological research paper in mainland China. Fang assembled a group of young faculty members of USTC around him to conduct astrophysics research.[59]
PhilosopherAllen Wood argued that, in its form as an officialSoviet philosophy, dialectical materialism was doomed to be superficial because "creativity or critical thinking" was impossible in anauthoritarian environment. Nevertheless, he considered the basic aims and principles of dialectical materialism to be in harmony with rational scientific thought.[16][60]
Economist and philosopherLudwig von Mises wrote a critique of Marxist materialism which he published as a part of his 1957 workTheory and History: An Interpretation of Social and Economic Evolution.H. B. Acton described Marxism as "a philosophical farrago".[61]Max Eastman argued that dialectical materialism lacks a psychological basis.[62]
Leszek Kołakowski criticized the laws of dialectics inMain Currents of Marxism, arguing that they consist partly oftruisms with no specific Marxist content, partly of philosophical dogmas, partly of nonsense, and partly of statements that could be any of these things depending on how they are interpreted.[63]
Joseph Needham, an influential historian of science and a Christian who nonetheless was an adherent of dialectical materialism, suggested that a more appropriate term might be "dialecticalorganicism".[64][65]
^Jordan, Z. A. (1967).The Evolution of Dialectical Materialism. London: Macmillan.
^Thomas, Paul (2008).Marxism and Scientific Socialism: From Engels to Althusser. London:Routledge.
^“dialectical materialism”,The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought Third Edition (0000) Allan Bullock and Stephen Tromblet, Eds. p. 222.
^Ministry of Education and Training (Vietnam) (2023).Curriculum of the Basic Principles of Marxism-Leninism. Vol. 1. Translated by Nguyen, Luna. Banyan House Publishing.ISBN9798987931608.
^Cornforth, Maurice.Dialectical Materialism: An Introduction. Aakar Books.
^Maasch, Bennett (2021).Dialectical Materialism: The Role Of Dialectical Materialism In The Development Of Natural Science.
^Pascal Charbonnat,Histoire des philosophies matérialistes, Syllepse, 2007, p. 477.
^Beamish, Rob (2007). "dialectical materialism". In Ritzer, George (ed.).The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing. pp. 1050–1051.
^See Plekhanov, "For the Sixtieth Anniversary of Hegel's Death" (1891). See also Plekhanov,Essays on the History of Materialism (1893) and Plekhanov,The Development of the Monist View of History (1895).
^abNicholas Churchich,Marxism and Alienation, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1990, p. 57: "Although Marx has rejected Feuerbach's abstract materialism," Lenin says that Feuerbach's views "are consistently materialist," implying that Feuerbach's conception of causality is entirely in line with dialectical materialism."
^Karl Marx,Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, ed. Frederick Engels (New York: Modern Library, no date, first published 1906), p. 25.
^K. Marx and F. Engels,The Holy Family (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1956), p. 107.
^Karl Marx,The Poverty of Philosophy (London: Martin Lawrence, [1936]), p. 102.
^Taylor, Angus (1989). "The Significance of Darwinian Theory for Marx and Engels".Philosophy of the Social Sciences.19 (4):409–423.doi:10.1177/004839318901900401.S2CID148748256.
^Ernest Mandel, Introduction to Karl Marx,Capital, Vol. 1 (Harmondsworth, U.K.: Penguin, 1976), p. 18.
^Ted Benton, ed.,The Greening of Marxism (New York: Guilford Press, 1996).
^Engels, F. (7th ed., 1973).Dialectics of nature (Translator, Clements Dutt). New York: International Publishers. (Original work published 1940). See alsoDialectics of Nature
^Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich.Science of Logic. 718ff, (p. 335 in the Miller edition; see also pp. 368–70).The sudden conversion into a change of quality of a change which was apparently merely quantitative had already attracted the attention of the ancients who illustrated in popular examples the contradiction arising from ignorance of this fact; they are familiar under the names of 'the bald' and 'the heap'. These elenchi are, according to Aristotle's explanation, the ways in which one is compelled to say the opposite of what one had previously asserted...
^Ministry of Education and Training (Vietnam) (2023).Curriculum of the Basic Principles of Marxism-Leninism. Vol. 1. Translated by Nguyen, Luna. Banyan House Punlishing. p. 203.ISBN9798987931608.
^Graham, Loren R. (1987).Science, Philosophy, and Human Behavior in the Soviet Union. New York:Columbia University Press.
^Acton, H.B. (1955).The Illusion of the Epoch. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund Inc. p. 257.ISBN9780865973947.{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)
^Oehler, Hugo (1941).Dialectical Materialism. Chicago: Demos Press. p. 12.
^Kołakowski 2005, pp. xix–xxi, 796, 909, 994, 1096, 1129–1140, 1171–1172.
^Needham, Joseph (1976).Moulds of Understanding. London:George Allen & Unwin. p. 278.
Grant, Ted; Woods, Alan (2003).Dialectical Philosophy and Modern Science. Reason in Revolt. Vol. 2 (American ed.). Algora Publishing.ISBN978-0-87586-158-6.
Dafermos, M. (2021). "Rethinking the relationship between Marx's Capital and Hegel's Science of Logic: The tradition of creative Soviet Marxism".Class & Capital.46:77–93.doi:10.1177/03098168211029003.
![[icon]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fwikipedia.org%2fwiki%2fFile%3aWiki_letter_w_cropped.svg)
