Shadow Government One World Order Barack Obama - Study Guide Collectivized Order New World Order Hegelian Dialectic Materialism Crisis Iraq Syria Israel Islamic Militants Cloward Piven Strategy Gun Controls Gun Laws Brainwash Global Communism Barack Obama Nancy Pelosi Harry Reid Eric Holder Tea Party Study Guide What Can I do next? What will they do next? How Can I save America?

Marshall Law to be imposed before 2016 Election,

Obama using the Muslim Brotherhood to gain power over the citizens of the United States and plans on Marshall Law in Texas, closed borders and communist restrictions.

By now, many have read that President Obama has recently called for a “new collectivized order” in order to quell many of the problems plaguing the world. President Obama cited the problems in Russia and Ukraine, Iraq, Israel and Palestine, and no doubt, acts as if the immigration issue is one of these crises as well.  Barack Obama plans to use North Korea, Syria, Iran, Iraq and other hot spots to declare an executive order and Marshall Law against American citizens. By law, this very day, Marshall Law is in effect but has not been triggered by the President Barack Obama. 

Truly, the world seems to be on fire, and the Global Elite  that are calling the shots would have you believe that surrendering our sovereignty to an all powerful global government is the solution, never mind the fact that it is the global elite causing these problems in the first place. Obama now using the EBOLA VIRUS to import Africans by the millions.  He will use Syria to import millions of Muslims inside America

Using the concepts of the Hegelian Dialectic, the powers that be create the global conditions that lead to fear and uncertainty, allow the targeted populations to demand “predetermined solutions,” and then reluctantly act as if they must go along with the demands to give the appearance of carrying out the peoples will.  Barack Obama Hillary Clinton Joe Biden Jeb Bush Marco Rubio is part of the same carnival government of smoke and mirrors.  Millions have been warned but only a few dozen took notice. 

Its all designed to get you to willingly accept what you once wouldn’t, global communism.

The formula is simple, create the problem which persuades the people to beg for a solution and then give it to them.  Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are full of solutions and they all involve taking your property and controlling your every move. 

This system of persuasive arguing was devised by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and would later become the frame work for Karl Marx’s “Dialectical Materialism,” which of course eventually became the frame work for communism. 

Like Marx, Hegel was a statist and believed that humanity owed allegiance to an all powerful state that directed every aspect of our lives. The dialectic is a methodology devised for the purpose of bringing people to this ultimate conclusion by being the creator of societal chaos, while also being the one able to implement the necessary solution. T

he formula was thesis-antithesis-synthesis, or problem-reaction-solution. In other words, it cons people into believing the state can create a perfect world by pitting two opposing forces against each other,  alleged opposing forces anyway.

With President Obama currently citing problems created by his own design as a reason to implement a “new world order,” there is little doubt that  he is following this dialectic formula. It isn’t just the crisis created in Iraq by pulling troops out too early, or arming Islamic militants whose intent is to annihilate the jews. It isn’t just the current Cloward Piven strategy being used to justify amnesty; it is every single policy issue seen in the United States and abroad. In fact, our entire government is now a dog and pony show following the out line of the dialectic in order to get people to see the “wisdom” in compromise.

Republicans and Democrats give the illusion of opposition, but in reality they are are pushing the same agenda while using their minor variances in policy initiatives as a means of bringing you to do their bidding. Whenever you hear the word compromise you can assume  that compromise was already a “predetermined” decision, and is being offered simply to give the illusion that two opposing parties can work together.

Do you think the U.S. government would kill you?

Many would argue that the Democrats and Republicans are doing anything but compromising. 

That's part of the thesis to get you to believe that we have an ineffective government, and be more accepting of the “collective” synthesis. 

The antithesis of course would be the demand that something be done about a congress that cant work together.

This same strategy is being used with the second amendment as well. 

Not only are they using tragedy as a means of getting people to accept, or rather get politicians to push for, more gun control; I would argue that in many cases they are lax on existing gun laws with the hopes of creating a crisis. Take the words of Eric Holder as he explains how to “brainwash” people into looking at guns in a different manner as an example. People in the United States, as a result of one too many high profile shootings, are literally begging for the government to restrict their rights. When you consider the fact that the worse gun violence occurs in states where there are more gun laws, it becomes self evident that the laws of said states are not being enforced, and the result of reoccurring violence is of course, more gun control laws. The issue of gun control is the perfect example of the Hegelian Dialectic at work.

Another good example is Global Warming, where people have been conditioned to believe that two hundred years of human activity is ruining a planet that is allegedly six billion years old.  The United Nations has already announced that global communism is the best way to fight global warming. They argue that the problem is so big and so complex that only a global government with complete control over the worlds resources can solve it. This is despite the fact that antarctic sea ice is hitting new record highs, confounding the climate models predicting otherwise.  The formula works the same here, create a crisis, cause fear and discontent, get people to demand your predetermined solution and then give it to them.

The powers that be are close to completing their new order, all they need is your acceptance and its a done deal. They will continue to point to all the chaos in the world with the hopes of instilling fear and uncertainty, when in reality they have caused the problems with the intent of getting you to turn to them for the solution. Don’t fall for it America.

dialectical materialism, official philosophy of Communism, based on the writings of Karl Marx

 and Friedrich Engels

, as elaborated by G. V. Plekhanov

, V. I. Lenin

, andJoseph Stalin

. In theory dialectical materialism is meant to provide both a general world view and a specific method for the investigation of scientific problems. The basic tenets arethat everything is material and that change takes place through "the struggle of opposites." Because everything contains different elements that are in opposition, "self-movement"automatically occurs; the conflict of opposing forces leads to growth, change, and development, according to definite laws. Communist scientists were expected to fit theirinvestigations into this pattern, and official approval of scientific theories in the USSR was determined to some extent by their conformity to dialectical materialism (see Lysenko, Trofim Denisovich

). Use of these principles in history and sociology is sometimes called historical materialism. Under these doctrines the social, political, and intellectual life ofsociety reflect only the economic structure, since human beings create the forms of social life solely in response to economic needs. Men are divided into classes by their relationsto the means of production—land and capital. The class that controls the means of production inevitably exploits the other classes in society; it is this class struggle that producesthe dynamic of history and is the source of progress toward a final uniformity. Historical materialism is deterministic; that is, it prescribes that history inevitably follows certain lawsand that individuals have little or no influence on its development. Central to historical materialism is the belief that change takes place through the meeting of two opposing forces(thesis and antithesis); their opposition is resolved by combination produced by a higher force (synthesis). Historical materialism has had many advocates outside the Communistworld.

Bibliography

See G. Wetter, Dialectical Materialism (1958, repr. 1973); A. Spirkin, Dialectical Materialism (1983); I. Yurkovets, Philosophy of Dialectical Materialism (1984).

The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia® Copyright © 2013, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Columbia University Press. All rights reserved. www.cc.columbia.edu/cu/cup/

Warning! The following article is from The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1979). It might be outdated or ideologically biased.

Dialectical Materialism

the philosophy of Marxism-Leninism; a scientific world view; a universal method of cognition of the world; the science of the most general laws of the movement and developmentof nature, society, and consciousness. Dialectical materialism is based on the achievements of modern science and advanced social practice; it is constantly developed andenriched as they progress. It constitutes the general theoretical foundation of Marxist-Leninist teaching. Marxist philosophy is materialistic, since it proceeds from the recognition ofmatter as the sole basis of the world; it views consciousness as the attribute of a highly organized, social form of matter’s motion, a function of the brain, the reflection of theobjective world. It is called dialectical because it recognizes the universal interrelationship between objects and phenomena and stresses the importance of motion anddevelopment in the world as the result of the internal contradictions operating in the world itself. Dialectical materialism is the highest form of modern materialism and the sum totalof the entire preceding history of the development of philosophical thought.

Origin and development. Marxism as a whole, and dialectical materialism, a component of it, emerged in the 1840’s, when the proletariat’s struggle for its social liberationimperiously demanded some knowledge of the laws of development of society. This was impossible without materialist dialectics and the materialist explanation of history. Thefounders of dialectical materialism, K. Marx and F. Engels, subjected social reality to a profound, thoroughgoing analysis, critically reworking and assimilating everything positivethat had been achieved previously in the areas of philosophy and history and creating a qualitatively new world view that became the philosophical basis for the theory of scientificcommunism and for the practical activity of the revolutionary workers’ movement. Marx and Engels were developing dialectical materialism in a sharp ideological struggle againstvarious forms of the bourgeois world view.

The immediate ideological sources of Marxism were the basic philosophical, economic, and political doctrines of the late 18th century and the first half of the 19th century. Marxand Engels creatively reworked Hegel’s idealist dialectics and earlier philosophical materialism, particularly the doctrine of Feuerbach. They revealed the revolutionary aspects ofHegel’s dialectics—the idea of development and its source and motive power, contradiction. Also important in the development of Marxism were the ideas of the exponents ofclassical bourgeois political economy (A. Smith and D. Ricardo), the works of the Utopian socialists (C. H. Saint-Simon, F. M. C. Fourier, and R. Owen), and the works of Frenchhistorians of the Restoration (J. N. A. Thierry, F. P. G. Guizot, and F.-A.-M. Mignet). The achievements of natural science of the late 18th century and the 19th century played animportant role in the development of dialectical materialism. (Dialectic was spontaneously forcing its way into the field of natural science.)

The essence and basic features of the revolution in philosophy achieved by Marx and Engels consisted of extending materialism to include the cognition of the history of society, ofsubstantiating the role of social practice as the basis of the development of human beings and their consciousness, and of organically unifying and creatively developingmaterialism and dialectics. “The application of materialist dialectics to the reshaping of all of political economy, from its foundations up; its application to history, natural science,philosophy and to the policy and tactics of the working class—that is what interested Marx and Engels most of all. It is there that they introduced what was most vital and newest,that was where they contributed what was most essential and new, and that was what constituted the masterly advance they made in the history of revolutionary thought” (V. I.Lenin, Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 25, p. 264).

The supreme achievement of human thought was the development of historical materialism. Only in the light of historical materialism was it possible to achieve a scientificunderstanding of the fundamental role of practice in social being and in cognition of the world, to resolve in a materialistic way the question of the active role of consciousness.“Theory … becomes a material force once it seizes the masses” (K. Marx, in K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 1, p. 422). Marxism views social being not only as anobject counterposed to human beings, but also subjectively, in the form of practical activity of human beings in its concrete historical context. Thus, Marxism overcomes theabstract contemplativeness of preceding materialism, which underestimated the active role of the subject, whereas idealism makes an absolute of the active role of consciousnessin the belief that consciousness forms the world.

Marxism theoretically substantiates and practically implements the conscious unification of theory and practice. Deducing theory from practice, it subordinates the former to theinterests of the revolutionary transformation of the world. This is the meaning of Marx’ famous 11th thesis on Feuer-bach: “The philosophers have only interpreted the world invarious ways; the point, however, is to change it” (ibid., vol. 3, p. 4). The strictly scientific prediction of the future and the orientation of humanity toward attaining it—those are thecharacteristic features of the philosophy of Marxism-Leninism.

The difference in principle between the philosophy of Marxism and all preceding philosophical systems lies in the fact that the ideas of Marxism permeate the masses of people andare realized by them; Marxist philosophy in its turn develops precisely on the basis of the historical practice of the masses of people. “Just as philosophy finds its material weaponsin the proletariat, so the proletariat finds its spiritual weapons in philosophy” (Marx, ibid., vol. 1, p. 428). Philosophy oriented the working class toward the revolutionarytransformation of society and the creation of a new, communist society.

After the deaths of Marx and Engels, much work in developing the tenets of dialectical materialism—primarily in propagating and defending it and in struggling against bourgeoisideology—was done by the most outstanding of their disciples and followers in various countries: in Germany, F. Mehring; in France, P. Lafargue; in Italy, A. Labriola; and inRussia, G. V. Plekhanov, who criticized idealism and philosophical revisionism, displaying great talent and brilliance. Lenin valued Plekhanov’s philosophical works of the late 19thand early 20th century as the best in the entire international philosophical literature of Marxism.

The theoretical activity of Lenin constituted a new, higher stage in the development of Marxist philosophy. With Lenin, the creative development of dialectical materialism and thedefense of dialectical materialism against revisionism and the onslaught of bourgeois ideology were linked in the closest possible way with the development of the theory ofsocialist revolution and the development of the doctrine of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the revolutionary party, the alliance of the working class and the peasantry, the socialiststate, the construction of socialism, and the transition from socialism to communism.

The elaboration of dialectical materialism was organically combined in Lenin’s works with the application of the dialectical method to a specific analysis of the achievements ofnatural science. Generalizing the most recent achievements of natural science from the standpoint of dialectical materialism, Lenin explained the causes of the methodologicalcrisis in physics and pointed out the means of overcoming it: “The basic materialist spirit of physics, as that of all modern natural science, will overcome all crises, but only by theindispensable replacement of metaphysical materialism by dialectical materialism” (Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 18, p. 324). Developing dialectical materialism in the struggleagainst idealist orientations in philosophical thought, Lenin deepened the conception of the basic categories of materialist dialectics and above all of the category of matter.Summarizing the achievements of science, philosophy, and social practice, Lenin formulated the definition of matter as the unity of its ontological and gnoseological aspects,emphasizing that the sole property of matter whose recognition is basic for philosophical materialism is its property of being objectively real, of existing outside of ourconsciousness.

Lenin worked out the basic problems of the theory of reflection and creatively developed Marxist doctrine concerning the role of social practice in the theory of knowledge, stressingthat “the standpoint of life, of practice, must be the first and fundamental in the theory of knowledge” (ibid., p. 145). Analyzing the main stages of human cognition and viewingpractice as the foundation of the cognitive process and the criterion of truth, Lenin demonstrated that cognition proceeds from living contemplation to abstract thinking and fromabstract thinking to practice.

Based on the critique of Machism, which maintained the standpoint of subjective idealism and relativism, Lenin further developed the Marxist doctrine of objective, relative, andabsolute truth and demonstrated their dialectical interrelationship. In Lenin’s doctrine of truth, the problem of the concrete nature of truth is central: “that which constitutes the verygist, the living soul of Marxism—a concrete analysis of a concrete situation” (ibid., vol. 41, p. 136).

Lenin formulated a proposition on the unity of dialectics, logic, and the theory of knowledge and determined the basic principles of dialectical logic. He stressed the necessity forcritical study and dialectical treatment of the history of human thought, science, and technology. The historical method, according to Lenin, is the very heart of dialecticalmaterialism. “The whole spirit of Marxism, its entire system demands that every proposition be viewed (a) only historically; (b) only in connection with other propositions; and (c)only in connection with the concrete experience of history” (ibid., vol. 49, p. 329).

The theoretical and practical activity of the communist and workers’ parties is of great importance in the development of the Marxist-Leninist world view and its theoretical basis,dialectical materialism, in the struggle against any distortion of this world view, in its translation in the practice of the workers’ movement and also into the construction of socialismand communism. At the present stage, dialectical materialism is the result of the creative activity of Marxists in many countries.

Matter and consciousness. All philosophical doctrines, no matter how diverse, have as their theoretical starting point, overtly or in less obvious form, the question of therelationship of consciousness to matter, thought to being. This is the basic, or supreme, question of any given philosophy, including dialectical materialism. It is rooted in thefundamental facts of life itself, in the existence and interrelationship of material and spiritual phenomena. All philosophers are divided into two camps, materialism and idealism,depending on whether they recognize the primacy of matter and the derivative nature of consciousness as being in materialism. Proceeding from the principle of materialistmonism, dialectical materialism maintains the view that the world is matter in motion. Matter as objective reality cannot be created; it is eternal and infinite. Characteristic of matterare such general forms of its existence as motion, space, and time. Motion is the universal mode of existence of matter. There is no matter without motion, and motion cannot existwithout matter.

The world represents a picture of inexhaustible diversity: inorganic and organic nature; mechanical, physical, and chemical phenomena; the life of plants and animals; the life ofsociety; and human beings and their consciousness. But with all this qualitative diversity of the objects and processes making up the world, the world is one, since all itscomponents are only various forms, species, and varieties of matter in motion, subject to certain general laws. All the components of the material world have histories ofdevelopment— for example, within the bounds of the planet earth, a transition has occurred from inorganic to organic matter (in the form of plant and animal life) and finally tohuman beings and society.

Matter existed prior to the appearance of consciousness, possessing in its “foundation” only a property similar to sensation, the property of reflection; whereas on the level of livingorganization, matter possesses the capacity for irritability, sensation, perception, and the elementary intellect of the higher animals. With the origin of human society there arises asocial form of the motion of matter, the bearer of which is the human being; as a subject of social practice, the human being has consciousness and self-consciousness. Achievinga high level of organization in its development, the world retains its material unity. Consciousness is inseparable from matter. Consciousness and the psyche constitute a specialproperty of highly organized matter; they emerge as a higher, qualitatively new link in the chain of the different properties of the material world.

According to dialectical materialism, consciousness is a function of the brain, a reflection of the objective world. The process of achieving awareness of the world and mentalactivity in general arise and develop out of the real interaction of the human being with the world through his social relations. Thus, outside of the sphere of gnoseology,consciousness does not stand in opposition to matter, and the “difference of the ideal from the material … is also not unconditional, not überschwenglich (’excessive’—ed.)” (Lenin,ibid., vol. 29, p. 104). Objects, their properties, and their relations are reflected in the brain and exist there in the form of images, as the ideal. The ideal is not a special substancebut rather the product of the brain’s activity. It is the subjective image of the objective world.

In contrast to agnosticism, dialectical materialism proceeds from the fact that the world is knowable and that science penetrates ever more deeply into the laws of being. Thepossibilities for achieving knowledge of the world are boundless, given the infinite nature of the cognitive process itself.

Epistemology. A basic aspect of the epistemology of dialectical materialism consists of the materialist resolution of the question of the relationship between thought and being andthe recognition of social practice—that is, the interaction of the human being with the surrounding world under the concrete historical conditions of social life—as the basis of thecognitive process. Practice is the source and basis of the formation of knowledge, the fundamental stimulus and goal of cognition, the sphere of the application of knowledge, thecriterion of the truth about the results of the cognitive process, and an “indicator of an object’s connection with human wants” (Lenin, ibid., vol. 42, p. 290).

The cognitive process begins with sensations and perceptions—that is, at the sensory level—and rises to the level of abstract logical thought. The transition from sensory cognitionto logical thought is a leap from knowledge of the isolated, the fortuitous, and the superficial instance to a generalized knowledge of what is essential, what is governed by law.Qualitatively different levels of cognition of the world, sensory perception, and thought are indissolubly linked together, forming steadily ascending links in a single cognitiveprocess.

Human thought is a historical phenomenon presupposing the inheritance from generation to generation of acquired knowledge, and consequently the possibility of securing thatknowledge by means of language, with which thought is firmly linked. An individual’s knowledge of the world is comprehensively mediated by the development of knowledge of theworld by humanity as a whole. Thus, the thought of contemporary humanity is the product of the sociohistorical process. The necessity of the historical method, which is indialectical unity with the logical method, ensues from the historical nature of human cognition and above all, the historical nature of the object of cognition.

The indispensable means of cognition are comparison, analysis, synthesis, generalization, abstraction, induction, and deduction, which reveal themselves differently at the variouslevels of cognition. The results of the cognitive process, insofar as they are adequate reflections of things, their properties, and their relationships, always have objective contentand constitute objective truth.

Human knowledge cannot completely reproduce and exhaust the contents of an object right away. Every theory is historically conditioned and thus contains not complete butrelative truth. But human thought can exist only as the thought of past, present, and future generations, and in this sense, the possibilities of knowledge are limited. Cognition is adevelopment of truth, and the latter emerges as the expression of a definite historical level of the never-ending cognitive process. Proceeding from the acceptance of the relativityof knowledge, in the sense of the historical conditionality of the limits of the approach toward complete knowledge, dialectical materialism rejects the extreme conclusions ofrelativism, according to which the nature of human knowledge precludes the recognition of objective truth.

Along with general features, every object also has its unique characteristics; every social phenomenon is conditioned by the specific circumstances of place and time. Thus, alongwith the generalized approach, a specific approach to the object of cognition is essential. This is expressed in the principle: truth is always concrete, never abstract. The concretenature of truth presupposes, first of all, the comprehensive, integral way of consideration of an object and recognition of the fact that it is constantly changing and therefore cannotbe correctly reflected in static categories. Warning against errors resulting from non-concrete methods of approaching the truth, Lenin wrote that “any truth, if it is made ’excessive,’… if exaggerated, or if carried beyond the limits of its actual applicability, can be reduced to an absurdity, and is even bound to become an absurdity under these conditions” (ibid.,vol. 41, p. 46).

Categories and laws. Categories are the most general, basic concepts and at the same time the essential definitions of the forms of existence and relationships of things;categories express the universal forms of existence and cognition in a generalized manner. All the preceding cognitive experience of humanity that has passed the test of socialpractice is accumulated in categories.

In the analysis of categories, dialectical materialism is based on the principles of the Marxist-Leninist theory of reflection and dialectics. Every category occupies a particular placein the system of materialist dialectics, being the generalized expression of the corresponding stage of development of knowledge about the world. Lenin regarded categories asstages, or focal points for the cognition of the world. At the foundation of the historically developing system of materialist dialectics there must be a category that requires nopremises and that is itself the starting premise for the development of all other categories. Matter is such a category. The basic forms of existence of matter— movement, space,and time—follow the category of matter.

The study of the infinite diversity of forms of matter begins with the isolation of an object and the ascertaining of its being—that is, its existence—and has the goal of uncovering theobject’s properties and relations. Each object appears to the active person in its qualitative aspect. Thus, cognition of material things begins right with sensation, “and in it, there isinevitably also quality” (Lenin, ibid., vol. 29, p. 301). Quality is the specific character of a given object, its peculiarity, its distinction from other objects. Awareness of quality precedescognition of quantity. Any object is a unity of quantity and quality; that is, a quantitatively determined quality, or measure. In revealing the qualitative and the quantitative specificityof things, humanity simultaneously establishes their differences and their identity.

All objects have external aspects that are comprehended immediately in sensation and perception and internal aspects, knowledge of which is achieved in a mediated fashion bymeans of abstract thinking. This difference in stages of cognition is expressed in the categories of the external and the internal. The formation of these categories in the humanconsciousness prepares for the comprehension of causality, or relationships of cause and effect, the correlation of which had been initially conceived only as the succession ofphenomena in time. Cognition proceeds “from coexistence to causality, and from one form of connection and reciprocal dependence to another, deeper, more general form” (ibid.,p. 203). In the subsequent process of the development of thought, humanity began to comprehend that cause not only gives rise to effect but also presupposes it as reaction; thus,the relationship of cause and effect appears as reciprocity, that is, as a universal connection between things and processes that is expressed in their mutual alteration. Thereciprocity between things and the reciprocity of aspects and moments within a thing are expressed in the struggle of opposites and are the universal cause of the change anddevelopment of things, rooted in the nature of the things; change and development are achieved not as the result of external stimulus as one-sided action but by virtue of reciprocalaction and contradiction. The internal contradictoriness of any object lies in the fact that in one object there is simultaneously mutual penetration and mutual exclusion of opposites.Development is the transition of the object from one state to a qualitatively different state, from one structure to another. Development is simultaneously a continuous and discreteprocess, both evolutionary and revolutionary, occurring in leaps.

Every link that appears in the chain of phenomena includes its own negation—that is, the possibility of transition to a new form of being. Thus, it becomes clear that the being ofthings is not restricted to their present being, that all things include a latent, potential, or “future being”—that is, potentiality, which until its transformation into present being exists inthe nature of things as the tendency of their development. In this regard, it appears that reality contains various potentialities, but only those for which the indispensable conditionsof realization exist are turned into actual being.

A profound realization of the connection between the external and the internal is revealed in the categories of form and content. The practical interaction of people with a multitudeof similar and different things served as the basis for the development of the categories of the unique, the particular, and the general. Constant observation of objects andphenomena in nature and in productive activity brought people to an understanding of the fact that certain connections are stable and of a constantly repetitive character, whereasothers appear rarely. This serves as the basis for the formation of the categories of necessity and chance. Comprehending an essence, and at a higher stage of developmentdisclosing an order of essences, means disclosing the foundations for change that are contained within an object as it interacts with other objects. Cognition of phenomena meansdisclosing how the essence reveals itself. Essence and phenomenon are revealed as moments of reality, which presents itself as a result of the emergence of actual being fromreal potentiality. Reality is richer and more concrete than potentiality, since the latter constitutes only one of the moments of reality. Reality is the unity of realized potentiality andthe source of new potentialities. A real potentiality contains the conditions for its emergence in reality and is itself a part of reality. From the standpoint of dialectical materialism,forms of thought and categories are the reflection in consciousness of the universal forms of the objectdirected activity of the social human being, who works to transform reality.Dialectical materialism proceeds from the assertion of the unity of the laws of being and of thought. “Our subjective thought and the objective world are subject to the same laws”(Engeh,Dialektika prirody, 1969, p. 231). Every universal law of development of the objective and the spiritual world is, in a certain sense, a law of cognition, as well: any lawreflecting what exists in reality also indicates how one should think correctly about the corresponding area of reality.

The sequence of development of logical categories in dialectical materialism is dictated first and foremost by the objective sequence of the development of knowledge. Eachcategory is a generalized reflection of objective reality, the outcome of age-old sociohistorical practice. Logical categories “are stages of distinguishing, that is, of cognizing theworld, focal points in the network [of natural phenomenon, of nature—ed.] which assist in cognizing and mastering it” (Lenin, Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 29, p. 85). Any logicalcategory is defined only by methodically tracing its connection with all other categories, only within the system of categories and by means of that system. Explaining thisproposition, Lenin notes the general sequence of development of logical categories: “First of all, impressions flash by, then something emerges; afterwards the concepts of quality… (the determination of the thing or the phenomenon) and quantity are developed. After that, study and reflection direct thought to cognition of identity—of difference—of Ground—of the Essence versus the Phenomenon—of causality, and so forth. All these moments (steps, stages, processes) of cognition move in the direction from the subject to the object,being tested by practice and arriving through this test at truth” (ibid., p. 301).

The categories of dialectics are indissolubly linked with its laws. Every area of nature, society, and thought has its own laws of development, but there are certain general laws ofdevelopment in the world because of its material unity. Their effects extend to all spheres of being and thought, developing differently in each of them. It is precisely the laws ofevery sort of development that dialectics studies. The most general laws of materialist dialectics are the transformation of quantitative to qualitative changes, the unity and struggleof opposites, and the law of negation of the negation. These laws express the universal forms of development of the material world and of cognition of it; they constitute a universalmethod of dialectical thinking. The law of the unity and struggle of opposites is based on the fact that the development of the objective world and of cognition are carried outthrough the bifurcation of an entity into mutually exclusive opposing moments, aspects, and tendencies; their interrelationship, the “struggle” and resolution of contradictions, on theone hand characterizes a given system as something integral and qualitatively determined, and on the other hand constitutes an internal impulse for the system’s change,development, and transformation into a new quality.

The law of reciprocal transformation of quantitative into qualitative changes reveals the most general mechanism of development: a change in the quality of an object occurs whenthe accumulation of quantitative changes reaches a certain limit, and a leap—that is, the replacement of one quality by another—occurs. The law of negation of the negationcharacterizes the direction of development. Its basic content is the unity of forward movement, progress, and continuity in development and the emergence of a new and relativerecurrence of certain previously existing elements. Knowledge of general laws serves as the guiding principle for the study of specific laws. In turn, the general laws of thedevelopment of the world and of cognition and the concrete forms in which they are manifested can be studied only on the basis of and in close connection with the study andgeneralization of individual laws. This interrelationship of general and specific laws constitutes the objective foundation of the interdependence of dialectical materialism and theindividual sciences. An independent philosophical science, dialectical materialism provides scientists with the only scientific method of cognition, which is adequate for theregularities of the objective world. Materialist dialectics is such a method “for it alone offers the analogue, and thereby the method of explaining the evolutionary process occurringin nature, interconnections in general, and transitions from one field of investigation to another” (Engels, see K. Marx and F. En-gels, Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 20, p. 367). Of course, thegeneral properties and relations of things reveal themselves in different ways, depending on the specific character of an area studied by a given science.

The specific sciences. The historical mission of dialectical materialism lies in the creative development of the scientific world view and the general methodological principles ofresearch in the sphere of the natural and social sciences, in a correct theoretical orientation of the practical struggle of progressive social forces. It is based on the firm foundationof all of science and social practice. Dialectical materialism, as Engels noted, is “a world outlook which has to establish its validity and be applied not in science of sciencesstanding apart, but in the positive sciences” (ibid., p. 142). Every science studies a qualitatively definite system of regularities by which the world operates. However, no specializedscience studies the regularities that are general to being and thought. These universal regularities are the subject of philosophical cognition. Dialectical materialism overcame theartificial break between the doctrine of being (ontology), the theory of knowledge (gnoseology), and logic. Dialectical materialism is distinguished from the specialized sciences bythe qualitative uniqueness of its subject and its universal, all-embracing nature. There are different levels of generalization within any specialized science. In dialectical materialism,the generalizations of the specialized sciences are themselves generalized. Thus, philosophical generalization rises to the highest “floors” of the integrating work of human reason.Dialectical materialism integrates the results of investigation in the various spheres of science into a unified whole, thus creating a synthesis of the knowledge of the universal lawsof being and thought. The subject of scientific cognition determines the nature of the methods applied in approaching it. Dialectical materialism does not use the special methods ofthe individual sciences. The basic tool of philosophical cognition is theoretical thought, based on the aggregate experience of humanity and on the achievements of all the sciencesand of culture as a whole.

Possessing a definite specificity, dialectical materialism is at the same time a general science, playing the role of a world view and a methodology for specific areas of knowledge.In various areas of scientific knowledge the internal need, constantly and as time goes on, increasingly arises for scrutinizing the logical apparatus, cognitive activity, the characterof theory and the means of building it, the analysis of the empirical and theoretical levels of cognition, the assumptions of the science, and the methods of comprehending truth. Allthis is the direct duty of philosophical investigation. The solution of these problems presupposes the unification of the efforts of exponents of the specialized sciences and ofphilosophy. The methodological significance of the principles, laws, and categories of dialectical materialism must not be understood in an oversimplified way, in the sense that itwould be impossible to resolve even a single problem without them. With regard to the place and role of dialectical materialism in the system of scientific cognition, the question isnot one of individual experiments or calculations, but rather of the development of science as a whole: the advancement and substantiation of hypotheses; the struggle of opinions;the creation of theories; the resolution of internal contradictions within a given theory; the exposure of the essence of the basic concepts of a science; the understanding of newfacts and evaluating the conclusions drawn from them; and the methods of scientific investigation. In the contemporary world, the revolution in science has become a scientific-technical revolution. Under these conditions, Engels’ words recalled by Lenin in Materialism and Empirio-criticism are particularly timely: that “with each epoch-making discoveryeven in the sphere of natural science, materialism has to change its form” (Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 18, p. 265). The transformations in contemporary science are so profoundthat they affect even its theoretical-cognitive foundations. The needs of developing science elicited substantial changes in the treatment of most of the categories of dialecticalmaterialism—matter, space and time, consciousness, causality, the part and the whole, and so forth. The increasing complexity of the subject of scientific cognition sharplycomplicated the methods, and the procedure itself, of cognitive activity. The developments of modern science had not merely put forward a multitude of new facts and methods ofcognition, posing more complex tasks for human cognitive activity, but also advanced a multitude of new concepts, and in addition often demanded a radical rethinking of previouspositions and ideas. The progress of science does not merely pose new questions for dialectical materialism but also focuses the attention of philosophical thought on new aspectsof old problems. One of the symptomatic phenomena of contemporary scientific cognition is the tendency to turn a number of specialized concepts into general scientific andphilosophical categories. These include probability, structure, system, information, algorithm, constructive object, feedback, control, model, simulation, and isomorphism. Actualcontacts are being established between Marxist philosophers and exponents of various other spheres of knowledge. These contacts contribute to advances, in both the formulationof questions and the solution of a number of important methodological problems of science. Examples include the explanation of the peculiarities of statistical regularities in themicroscopic world and substantiation of their objectivity; the demonstration of the unsoundness of indeterminism in modern physics; the demonstration of the applicability ofphysics, chemistry, and cybernetics in biological research; the clarification of the man-machine system; the working out of the problem of the correlation between the physiologicaland the psychic; and the clarification of the cooperation of separate sciences in the study of the brain. One of the tendencies of modern science is the increasing abstraction ofknowledge, the “flight” from the perceptible and demonstrable. Dialectical materialism shows that all sciences develop along the path of gradual withdrawal from descriptivemethods of investigation to ever greater use of precise methods, including mathematical methods, not only in the natural sciences but also in the social sciences. In the cognitiveprocess, artificial formalized languages and mathematical symbolism play an increasingly greater role. Theoretical generalization becomes increasingly indirect and multilevel,revealing ever more profound objective ties. The principles, laws, and categories of dialectical materialism play an active part in the synthesis of new scientific notions, in theclosest connection, of course, with the empirical and theoretical notions of the corresponding science. In recent years, the heuristic role of dialectical materialism in the synthesis ofthe contemporary scientific picture of the world has been thoroughly manifested.

Party spirit. Dialectical materialism has a class and a party character. The partiinost’ (party spirit) of any philosophy is above all its affiliation with one of the two main philosophicalcamps—materialism and idealism. In the final analysis, the struggle between them reflects the contradictions between the progressive and conservative tendencies in socialdevelopment. The partiinost’ of dialectical materialism is manifested in the fact that it consistently adheres to the principle of materialism, which is in complete accordance with theinterests of science and revolutionary social practice.

Dialectical materialism arose as the theoretical basis of the world view of the revolutionary class, the proletariat, and it constitutes the general ideological and methodological basisof the program, strategy, tactics, and politics of communist and workers’ parties. The political line of Marxism is at all times and in all issues “inseparably bound up with itsphilosophical principles” (Lenin, ibid., vol. 17, p. 418). The ideologists of the bourgeoisie and the revisionists exalt the non-partiinost’, setting forth the idea of a “third line” inphilosophy. The idea of non-partiinost’ in a world view is a mistaken one. Lenin emphasized that there can be no non-party “social science in a society based on class struggle”(ibid., vol. 23, p. 40). The revisionists assert that partiinost’ is incompatible with the scientific approach. Actually, partiinost’ is incompatible with the reactionary world view, but it isfully compatible with the scientific approach where the progressive world view is concerned. Communist partiinost’ means also a genuinely scientific approach to the phenomena ofreality, since the working class and the Communist Party, whose goal is the revolutionary transformation of the world, are vitally interested in the correct cognition of the world. Theprinciple of partiinost’ demands consistent, uncompromising struggle against bourgeois theories and views, as well as against the ideas of right and “left” revisionism. Thepartiinost’ of dialectical materialism is based on the fact that it is precisely this world view that consciously and purposefully serves the interests of the great cause of theconstruction of socialism and communism.

Dialectical materialism develops in the struggle against various currents in contemporary bourgeois philosophy. Bourgeois ideologists, seeing in dialectical materialism afundamental obstacle to the spread of their views, present criticisms of dialectical materialism with increasing frequency, distorting its essence in the process. Certain bourgeoisideologists strive to deprive materialist dialectics of its revolutionary content and in this form adapt it to their own needs. The majority of present-day bourgeois critics of dialecticalmaterialism attempt to interpret it as a variant of religious faith, to deny its scientific nature, and to find features common to dialectical materialism and Catholic philosophy, in neo-Thomism. These and other “arguments” are used also by various representatives of modern revisionism in their attempts to revise and “correct” specific propositions of dialecticalmaterialism.

Revisionists of the right and the “left” in fact deny the objective nature of social laws and the necessity for a revolutionary party to act in accordance with these laws. This relatesalso to the laws of dialectics. Reformists and right-wing revisionist ideologists recognize not the struggle but rather the conciliation of opposites; they deny qualitative changes,defending only “flat” evolutionism, and do not recognize the law of negation of the negation. In turn, left-wing revisionist theoreticians consider only antagonistic contradictions andtheir chaotic “struggle” to be real; they deny quantitative changes, fighting for continuous “leaps” and endorsing the complete negation of the old without preserving what waspositive in it. For the reformists and right-wing revisionists, this serves as a methodological basis to justify opportunism, while for the “left” revisionists, their methodology is thebasis for extreme voluntarism and subjectivism in politics.

In its struggle against bourgeois philosophy, as against contemporary revisionism and dogmatism, Marxism consistently adheres to the principle of the partiinost’ of philosophy,viewing the philosophy of dialectical and historical materialism as a scientific weapon in the hands of the working class and toiling masses who are struggling for their liberationfrom capitalism and for the victory of communism.

REFERENCES

Marx, K., and P. Engels. “Nemetskaia ideologiia.” Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 3.

Marx, K. Tezisy o Feierbakhe. Ibid.

Engels, F. Anti-Dühring. Ibid., vol. 20.

Engels, F. Dialektika prirody. Ibid.

Lenin, V. I. Materializm i empiriokrititsizm. Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 18.

Lenin, V. I. Tri istochnika i tri sostavnykh chasti marksizma. Ibid., vol. 23.

Lenin, V. I. Filosofskie tetradi. Ibid., vol. 29.

Morochnik, S. B. Dialekticheskii materializm. Dushanbe, 1963.

Rutkevich, M. N. Dialekticheskii materializm. Moscow, 1961.

Marksistsko-leninskaia filosofiia: Dialekticheskii materializm. Moscow, 1970.

Osnovy marksistsko-leninskoifilosofii. Moscow, 1971.