Dialectics in the World: Examples
Abstract
Reading works of Marxist philosophy, it is easy to conceive of the concept of the universality of contradictions and dialectical struggle in the abstract. But it is a different thing, a more difficult and more important lesson, to as a student of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and Gonzalo Thought be able to look at the world around oneself and actually see the defining contradictions and world-shaping dialectics in everything one looks at. To understand the world, or anything, from a practical Maoist perspective one must be able to look beyond the obvious and scientifically observe how the relations and natures of things in the material world are examples of dialectical processes in action. In the interest of illustrating how dialectical reasoning can be applied to understanding dialectical processes in the real world, I have selected several examples. The purpose of these examples is twofold: firstly, they serve as proofs that the function of dialectics based on material contradictions as the driving phenomena of the universe is indeed universal. Secondly, they illustrate how one can find and understand the dialectical nature of material processes in order to understand them better.
Example no. One: Erosion as Dialectic Between Sea and Stone
If we look at a rocky shore, the area of intertidal landscape in which stone (in my experience of observing usually a relatively hard exposed bedrock, like a formation of granite) meets surf, as a geophysical system, we can see that it is defined principally by a single contradiction: that between the rock, and its firm maintenance of position, and the water, and its continual drive to push forward onto the shore- the contradiction being of course that the stone stands in the water’s way.
And due to this contradiction, there is a dialectical interaction between stone and surf: the one holding fast to its position against the other’s continual drive to push through it. This dialectical conflict, furthermore, is what defines the development and change of the geophysical system over time: as the surf pushes inward onto the shore more and more of the stone is crushed into sand, until the outcropping of rock is gone altogether- at which point a qualitative leap in the nature of the geophysical system occurs and out of the dialectical struggle-of-opposites between stone and surf arises a new unity-of-opposites: a sandy beach.
Example no. Two: Stellar Nuclear Fusion as Dialectic Between Fundamental Forces
All atomically-composed matter begins its life as hydrogen in the body of a star. In order for any atoms to exist other than hydrogen atoms, inquiry into particle physics has told us they must arise out of the process of nuclear fusion in stars, the process by which- under incredible gravitational pressure- multiple atoms are effectively crushed together and become one. This process of nuclear fusion in stars, if we examine it more closely, becomes clearly visible as a dialectical one.
There are, physicists generally agree, four fundamental forces- essentially, forms of innate natural interactions between particles that determine how they behave. This process of stellar nuclear fission concerns three: gravity, with which the reader is familiar, and the strong and weak nuclear forces, which (to simplify), hold atoms together. In the body of a star, for this particular example we shall say it is a young star still almost exclusively made up of hydrogen, these forces are at play in competing ways. The star’s immense gravity draws all the particles within it towards a single center point, compressing them together without regard for atomic borders. The nuclear forces within each atom, conversely, are driven to hold its particles together as a cohesive unit distinct from anything outside it. What have we here? A material contradiction! And in light of this contradiction, dialectical conflict unfolds in the heart of the star. Gravity pulls more and more upon the star’s components as the star collects more matter from space, even as each atom of that matter is held together and distinct by its nuclear forces. A struggle-of-opposites roils inside the star, until finally gravity triumphs in this struggle and a new form of matter, the child of dialectical processes, is created: helium, made up of atoms that have been produced by gravity overpowering the nuclear forces of hydrogen in dialectical confrontation to crush hydrogen atoms together. And, the star not even pausing in the constant process of shaping the universe through dialectical material processes, another struggle-of-opposites promptly erupts between gravity and the nuclear forces of the helium, therein existing a new contradiction that has continued in the mold of the old, and eventually this dialectic will end in producing lithium and beryllium, and yet another dialectic begins there… and so on.
Observing it thusly, recognizing the existence of material contradictions and their resultant struggles at the heart of it, it is clear that stellar nuclear fusion is a dialectical material process. Now, I am sure we all had a science teacher in primary school who told us- perhaps seeking to instill self-confidence- that we were made of star-stuff. In fact, this teacher told the truth: physics tells us all atomic matter (except hydrogen, which came most probably from the big bang- a topic to be touched later) comes from stellar nuclear fusion, and we have just shown it to be a dialectical process! What better illustration than that is there of the universality of material contradictions and material dialectics as the driving processes of the universe, than that the very stuff of the Earth is demonstrably a product of a series of material dialectics!
Example no. Three: Interpersonal Dialectics
From the essential stuff of our world, we turn to the essential stuff of our day-to-day social life: interpersonal relationships. After all, what is a friendship, a romance, a marriage but a unity-of-opposites, a set of two (or more) distinct elements bound together and mutually defined by the contradiction(s) between them. One hopes these contradictions will remain non-antagonistic ones, that the dialectic through which their resolution comes will be one of collaborative struggle that leads to redoubling of unity. But in other cases, as these contradictions intensify, they become antagonistic and reach a point at which their only resolution is that which comes through full antagonistic struggle-of-opposites that destroys the original unity.
In either case, the way in which such interpersonal relationships develop over time, whether to their end or throughout a lifetime, is dialectical. An example can illustrate this. Let us say we have a married couple, let us call them, for our own amusement and because it is easier to remember than simply saying “A” and “B,” Brandon and Virginia. Brandon and Virginia have an uneasy marriage, chiefly because Brandon would like to have children and Virginia would not. This, then, is a unity-of-opposites between two elements, Brandon and Virginia, in which the principal contradiction is the contradiction Brandon’s desire to have children↔Virginia’s desire not to have children. And of course this contradiction will fester, will only become more antagonistic over time, as Brandon says such things as “you’re not getting any younger, Virginia…” and Virginia becomes increasingly annoyed with his inappropriate behavior. And so in the end, the contradiction boils over and the unity is shattered by struggle-of-opposites, Brandon and Virginia divorce, and each of them enters a new life- a new unity-of-opposites. And what we have just witnessed is a complete iteration of an antagonistic dialectical process, the intensification of antagonistic contradictions and struggle in a unity-of-opposites until it erupts apart. Dialectics!
Example no. Four: The Dialectical Process of Aging
The body is an object, but it is not a static object and therefore must not be an object without moving parts and internal contradictions and dialectics. It is a vast mass of systems, and these systems over time decay. But that decay doesn’t just happen it is a process, a process of a very particular kind- a dialectical process. The whole body is, first of all, a unity-of-opposites, a mess of uneasily coexisting parts. And the central contradiction within it, at least as it pertains to this process, is that between the intrinsic natural tendency of all life to maintain homeostasis and the various biological failings which arise over time to impede it (a major one, for instance, being the erosion of telomeres- which itself I am sure could be shown to be a dialectical process)). And of course over time this contradiction intensifies- the telomeres, after all, will only continue to worsen in the extent of their eroded state.
As the contradiction tendency toward homeostasis↔obstacles to homeostasis intensifies, the stability of the body and its general state of homeostasis will weaken, and emerging from the rising dominance of the obstacles to homeostasis comes a new force: the tendency to functional decay, what we may call senescence. The drive to maintain homeostasis becomes weaker and weaker, until senescence triumphs over it and the result is sickness and death. This is the final struggle-of-opposites in this dialectic, in which the original unity-of-opposites of the body is destroyed and its parts reconstituted as a new unity-of-opposites, defined by new forces and new contradictions: a corpse.
Example no. Five: Criticism and Self-Criticism; Dialectics in the Movement
The practice of Criticism and Self-Criticism is a central part of Maoist organizing theory; understanding it is vital. Unfortunately, many explanations of it- including ones I have written in the past- are woefully rudimentary. “When somebody is wrong, they should be criticized or encouraged to criticize themselves until they realize their mistake, but in a way that is educational rather than punitive”- this is all they say. And this isn’t wrong, but it is a reductively mechanical way to understand it- it comprehends the most obvious aspects of the form of the thing, but not it’s essence, what makes it a special or distinct theory, and what distinguishes it from other, vulgarized forms of “criticism of the self.”
The truth is, properly understood, it is and should be always looked at as a dialectical process. Any unit of the revolutionary movement- a Party, a mass organization, a study circle, indeed the life of a single communist- is like anything a unity of opposites, a thing containing within itself contradictions which require struggle between the opposing elements to resolve. Chiefly, what concerns us is the contradictions between lines or opinions, between wrong ones and right ones. When these contradictions become known, when an organization develops a significant internal line struggle or an individual becomes aware of mistakes they have been making in their line, Criticism and Self Criticism is the dialectical struggle through which the contradiction is resolved. Of course the vast majority of the time, as long as everybody involved is a good and sincere communist, these contradictions are benign rather than antagonistic. This means that the correct line can triumph and the incorrect be liquidated without aggression or outright conflict, through a process of dialectical struggle in the form of rigorous criticism.
This formula should follow a precise logical formula, laid out by Mao in On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People, variously translated as Unity-Struggle-Unity (U-S-U) or Unity-Criticism-Unity (U-C-U). We must begin with our intent clear: the purpose and goal of entering into the process at all is Unity. On this grounds, when the representatives of the one line Criticize and Struggle with the other and vice versa, it must be done respectfully and on an equal footing, not with the intent to bash or shame the other but instead with the intent to convince them of the correct line. And finally, once this struggle-of-opposites has led to a change in the minds of the incorrect half of the unit, we return to a new Unity.
This dialectical formula is essential to the theory, and it is what distinguishes it from vulgar perversions of “self-criticism.” It is a process not of punishment, and not of one individual being shamed or denounced by the rest, but of the entire unit struggling on equal footing to produce a new and better unity. And, as the U-S-U process is an essential part of the Maoist conception of revolutionary organizing (both in purpose-built criticism sessions and as a general attitude applied always), it is another example of the universality of dialectics ringing true everywhere.
Conclusion: The Nature and the Vital Importance of Dialectical Understanding
From the above examples, I hope the proper understanding of the theory of dialectical materialism is made clear. It is not an abstraction, an immaterial concept existing only on the page. And it is not a vulgar dualism, a simplistic understanding of the conflict between “good” and “evil” within the context of human history and society or an abstraction of two opposing ideals. No! It is a fundamental, scientifically true understanding of the nature of the material universe. Its essential law, the Law of Contradiction or Law of Unity of Opposites, holds true everywhere: each material thing or system has in it, factually and physically rather than as manifestations of some dualist abstraction of idealism, opposing elements mutually defined by the contradictions between them, and it is due to these contradictions that conflicts and struggles (dialectics) erupt which drive the changes of these things or systems, these unities-of-opposites erupting into struggles-of-opposites, transforming them into new unities-of-opposites within which there are of course new contradictions. This law is a universally accurate description of the nature of the material universe and how it changes over time. Understanding it, then, is vital because it enables us to understand how things change and how they will change, and thus essentially what their nature is. It is additionally vital because, in understanding the contradictions between the elements in the universe, we can understand how any given thing relates to any given other. Therefore, let us always look upon and analyze the problems before us with Dialectical Materialism in mind!
