I’m an old leftie whose life was shaped by my readings on dialectical materialism. It became the intellectual tool and framework which has sustained me.
This is a most splendid article which sets out clearly why any thinking person should adopt it.
This is one of the clearest introductions to dialectical materialism I’ve read in a long time! Brilliantly, it treats it as a method of analysis rather than a collection of slogans or moral conclusions. The strongest aspect of the piece is the insistence on beginning from material reality (institutions, ownership structures, incentives, class relations, historical development) instead of starting from abstract values and working backwards.
I also think the emphasis on contradiction is especially useful here. A lot of political commentary treats crises as isolated policy failures or the result of individual incompetence, whereas this framework tries to identify the structural tensions driving events beneath the surface. The housing example is particularly effective because it shows how seemingly endless political debates often reproduce themselves precisely because the underlying material interests remain intact.
The sections on historical development and totality are also important because they push against the very short-term, presentist way politics is usually discussed online. Situations don’t appear out of nowhere; they emerge from accumulated historical processes and wider systems of power. That’s what makes the method valuable beyond Marxism itself - even people who disagree with Marxist conclusions can still benefit from learning to analyse institutions historically and structurally rather than morally.
At the same time, I think there’s always a danger that dialectical materialism can become too totalising if applied mechanically, where every political or cultural phenomenon gets reduced too neatly to economic structure alone. The best materialist analysis, in my view, is the kind that still leaves space for contingency, political agency, ideology, and the fact that history often develops unevenly and unpredictably rather than according to perfectly coherent laws. This, however, is minor and just me being picky.
Nonetheless, this is a genuinely strong explanation of the method, especially for readers who usually only encounter “dialectical materialism” as either internet jargon or Cold War caricature.
I’m glad my post cut through with you! And yes, agreed re. reducing everything to economic structure - I believe dialectical materialism can apply to politics, culture, and really anything observable, not just economics
Brilliant! Evolutionary biology is such a perfect application of it👏🏽 a lot of scientists practise dialectical materialism by accident (it’s inherently scientific), so doing it on purpose is great!
Dialectical materialism rests on a false premise: that material conditions and class conflict are the driving forces of history, while ideas, morality, and culture are merely reflections of those forces. But this turns reality upside down.
People act according to the ideas they hold, and those ideas shape the institutions and economic systems they create. Markets, governments, laws, and revolutions all begin with human choices, not impersonal historical forces.
Its greatest flaw is that it treats history as if it follows an inevitable path. Once you believe history has a predetermined direction, almost any use of coercion can be justified as serving "historical progress." History is not the unfolding of material laws—it is the result of individuals making purposeful choices. Freedom, not historical necessity, is what drives genuine social progress.
Good article. I've noticed It's important to see news through a prism of materialism in lieu of the conversation ending up being a clash of preferred personalities and abstract words about something ideologically vague.
I can't recall recall if this subject was taught in my college and university days. But certainly recall I encountered ttjis Dialectic materialism in seminars with Marxism Leninist ideology.
There is plenty of reasons why political commentators wouldn’t try to find an answer or go any deeper than the skin of the onion or the ”feelings” on a subject. If we were to solve the issues present and use among other methods dialectical materialism, as a basis of thought. There wouldn’t be a political war between left and right, atheism and theism. Without these wars and attention attractors there would be space and time for way more of our people to start doing internal reflection and come to the conclusion that God is real and being opposed to the laws of (G) Generative, (O) Infinate and (D) Destructive is ultimately detrimental to our socital well being and prosperity.
Every analytical framework highlights some truths and obscures others. How do we combine structural analysis with individual agency to get a fuller picture?
The individual always and everywhere exists in a bounded social context, is itself a dialectical unfolding in relation to other individuals, and cannot be disassociated from that context and abstracted as a value in itself. Did you not read the part about praxis and applying the method to one’s local conditions in cooperation with peers to affect change? What is that if not human agency?
I would very much like to see your take on the historical development and current influence of the stateless power centres described as the financial industrial complex, the military industrial complex and the surveillance (aka technical) industrial complex.
I’m an old leftie whose life was shaped by my readings on dialectical materialism. It became the intellectual tool and framework which has sustained me.
This is a most splendid article which sets out clearly why any thinking person should adopt it.
Thank you!
Thank you. So insightful
Clear and useful. A real reaching tool. Thank you.
Thank you!!
Yeah this is great, thank you.
This is one of the clearest introductions to dialectical materialism I’ve read in a long time! Brilliantly, it treats it as a method of analysis rather than a collection of slogans or moral conclusions. The strongest aspect of the piece is the insistence on beginning from material reality (institutions, ownership structures, incentives, class relations, historical development) instead of starting from abstract values and working backwards.
I also think the emphasis on contradiction is especially useful here. A lot of political commentary treats crises as isolated policy failures or the result of individual incompetence, whereas this framework tries to identify the structural tensions driving events beneath the surface. The housing example is particularly effective because it shows how seemingly endless political debates often reproduce themselves precisely because the underlying material interests remain intact.
The sections on historical development and totality are also important because they push against the very short-term, presentist way politics is usually discussed online. Situations don’t appear out of nowhere; they emerge from accumulated historical processes and wider systems of power. That’s what makes the method valuable beyond Marxism itself - even people who disagree with Marxist conclusions can still benefit from learning to analyse institutions historically and structurally rather than morally.
At the same time, I think there’s always a danger that dialectical materialism can become too totalising if applied mechanically, where every political or cultural phenomenon gets reduced too neatly to economic structure alone. The best materialist analysis, in my view, is the kind that still leaves space for contingency, political agency, ideology, and the fact that history often develops unevenly and unpredictably rather than according to perfectly coherent laws. This, however, is minor and just me being picky.
Nonetheless, this is a genuinely strong explanation of the method, especially for readers who usually only encounter “dialectical materialism” as either internet jargon or Cold War caricature.
I’m glad my post cut through with you! And yes, agreed re. reducing everything to economic structure - I believe dialectical materialism can apply to politics, culture, and really anything observable, not just economics
I’m glad you understand my point - a great piece!
Excellent post - shared! You might be interested in this piece by me about overapping topics:
https://mronline.org/2021/11/04/richard-lewontin-dialectical-materialism-the-relationship-between-evolutionary-biology-and-marxism/
Brilliant! Evolutionary biology is such a perfect application of it👏🏽 a lot of scientists practise dialectical materialism by accident (it’s inherently scientific), so doing it on purpose is great!
Dialectical materialism rests on a false premise: that material conditions and class conflict are the driving forces of history, while ideas, morality, and culture are merely reflections of those forces. But this turns reality upside down.
People act according to the ideas they hold, and those ideas shape the institutions and economic systems they create. Markets, governments, laws, and revolutions all begin with human choices, not impersonal historical forces.
Its greatest flaw is that it treats history as if it follows an inevitable path. Once you believe history has a predetermined direction, almost any use of coercion can be justified as serving "historical progress." History is not the unfolding of material laws—it is the result of individuals making purposeful choices. Freedom, not historical necessity, is what drives genuine social progress.
I will apply these principles. Thanks for sharing.
Good article. I've noticed It's important to see news through a prism of materialism in lieu of the conversation ending up being a clash of preferred personalities and abstract words about something ideologically vague.
I can't recall recall if this subject was taught in my college and university days. But certainly recall I encountered ttjis Dialectic materialism in seminars with Marxism Leninist ideology.
Fine explanation with examples of materialism.
There is plenty of reasons why political commentators wouldn’t try to find an answer or go any deeper than the skin of the onion or the ”feelings” on a subject. If we were to solve the issues present and use among other methods dialectical materialism, as a basis of thought. There wouldn’t be a political war between left and right, atheism and theism. Without these wars and attention attractors there would be space and time for way more of our people to start doing internal reflection and come to the conclusion that God is real and being opposed to the laws of (G) Generative, (O) Infinate and (D) Destructive is ultimately detrimental to our socital well being and prosperity.
Everyone is calling stablecoins “innovation.”
That’s the distraction.
What they actually are. is infrastructure.
And not just financial infrastructure geopolitical infrastructure.
Stablecoins are quietly becoming the most elegant monetary weapon ever created.
No tanks.
No sanctions headlines.
No central bank announcements.
Just code… spreading the dollar deeper into the global system than ever before.
Think about the strategy:
Instead of forcing dollar dominance through institutions,
you let the market do it for you.
You wrap the dollar in speed, accessibility, and programmability
and suddenly billions of people are choosing dollar exposure without ever touching a U.S. bank.
This is not accidental.
This is design.
Because every stablecoin issued, every wallet created, every transaction settled
extends the reach of U.S. monetary power beyond its borders.
And here’s the part nobody wants to say out loud:
The world thinks it’s adopting crypto.
But in reality.
It may be re-dollarizing itself at scale.
For emerging markets, this is seductive:
Stability over volatile local currencies
Access over restriction
Speed over bureaucracy
But for sovereign economies?
It raises a dangerous question:
What happens when your citizens trust a digital dollar more than your own currency?
What happens when monetary policy loses its grip not because of crisis, but because of preference?
And for the wealthy, the institutions, the global elite watching this unfold:
This isn’t just about fintech.
This is about control of the next financial system.
Because the winners of this shift won’t just move money faster.
They will decide:
Which currencies survive
Which economies stay relevant
And who actually holds power in a digitized world
Stablecoins are not the future of money.
They are the battlefield.
And most people don’t even realize the war has already started.
Every analytical framework highlights some truths and obscures others. How do we combine structural analysis with individual agency to get a fuller picture?
The individual always and everywhere exists in a bounded social context, is itself a dialectical unfolding in relation to other individuals, and cannot be disassociated from that context and abstracted as a value in itself. Did you not read the part about praxis and applying the method to one’s local conditions in cooperation with peers to affect change? What is that if not human agency?
I would very much like to see your take on the historical development and current influence of the stateless power centres described as the financial industrial complex, the military industrial complex and the surveillance (aka technical) industrial complex.