[p. 192] Pre-Marxist materialism (mechanistic materialism) did not emphasise the dynamic role of thought in knowledge, attributing it only with a passive role, and perceiving it as a mirror which reflected nature. Mechanistic materialism adopted an unreasonable attitude towards idealism, ignoring the causes of its epistemology, and consequently was incapable of overcoming it.
Only dialectical materialism has correctly pointed out the dynamic role of thought while at the same time pointing out the limitations which matter imposes on thought, has pointed out that thought emerges from social practice, and at the same time that it actively guides practice. Only the dialectical theory of the “unity of thought and action” can thoroughly overcome idealism.
4. The Origins of the Emergence and Development of Materialism
The foundation of materialism is the recognition that matter exists independently of thought in the external world, and was acquired by humanity through practice. Through the practice of productive labour, class struggle, and scientific experiment, humankind gradually broke away from superstition and wishful thinking (idealism), gradually recognised the essence of the (p. 271) world, and in so doing arrived at materialism.
Primitive humans, yielding before the force of nature and capable only of using simple tools, were unable to explain change in the environment and so turned to the gods for help. This was the origin of religion and idealism.
However, during a lengthy process of production, humans came into contact with the surrounding natural world, acted on it and changed it; and in producing the basic necessities of life, made the natural world conform to their interests, and allowed them the firm belief that matter exists objectively.
In the social life of humankind, there emerges relations and influence between people, and in class society class struggle also occurs. The oppressed class evaluates the situation, makes an estimation of its own strength, formulates a programme, and when its struggle succeeds, it becomes confident that its own views are not merely the product of an illusion, [p. 193] but a reflection of the objectively existing material world. The failure of the oppressed class because it has adopted an incorrect programme, and the success resulting from a correction of that programme, allows the oppressed class to comprehend that only correct knowledge in which a subjective programme relies on the materiality and law-like regularity of the objective world can achieve its purpose.
The science of history has proved to humankind the materiality and law-like regularity of the world, and given rise to a consciousness of the uselessness of the fantasies of religion and idealism, and resulted in humankind’s arrival at materialism.
In summary, the history of humankind’s practice – the history of the struggle with nature, the history of class struggle, the history of science over a protracted period – has, through the necessity of life and struggle, led to a consideration of material reality and its principles, and so testified to the correctness of the materialist philosophy. Consequently, humankind has found the ideological instrument for its own struggle – the philosophy of materialism. As the development of production advances to a higher level, as the class struggle becomes more developed, and as scientific knowledge reveals even more ‘mysteries’ of nature, so does the philosophy of materialism develop and become consolidated; and humankind is increasingly able to liberate itself gradually from the two-fold oppression of nature and society.
The bourgeoisie, during the period of its struggle against the feudal classes and at a time when the proletariat did not yet constitute a threat, had already discovered and moreover employed (p. 272) materialism as an instrument in its own struggle; it was already convinced that objects in the environment were material products and not spiritual products. It was only when the bourgeoisie itself became the ruling class and the struggle of the proletariat threatened it that it abandoned this ‘useless’ instrument and took up once again another – the philosophy of idealism. Evidence of this is the change in thought from before to after 1927 – from materialism to idealism – on the part of the spokesmen of the Chinese bourgeoisie Dai Jitao and Wu Zhihui.[2-182]
The proletariat, which is the gravedigger of capitalism, “is intrinsically materialist”. However, because the proletariat is historically the most progressive class, its materialism is different from the materialism of the bourgeoisie, is more thorough and profound; in character, it is completely dialectical, and not mechanistic.
Dialectical materialism was created by the spokesmen [p. 194] of the proletariat Marx and Engels as a result of the practice of the proletariat[2-183] and at the same time because the proletariat had assimilated all the results[2-184] of the entire history of humanity. Dialectical materialism not only maintains that matter is divorced from human consciousness and exists independently of it, it also asserts that matter changes. Dialectical materialism became a thoroughly systematic and completely new world view and methodology. This is the philosophy of Marxism.
Chapter Two: Dialectical Materialism
The problems which emerge from this subject and which will be discussed are:[2-185]
(1) The revolutionary weapon of the proletariat – dialectical materialism;
(2) The relationship between dialectical materialism and the philosophical legacy of the past;
(3) The unity of the world view and methodology within dialectical materialism;
(4) The question of the object of philosophy; (p. 273)
(5) On matter,
(6) On motion;
(7) On time and space;
(8) On consciousness;
(9) On reflection;
(10) On truth;
(11) On practice.
My viewpoint on these problems is stated briefly in the following sections.[2-186]
1. Dialectical Materialism Is the Revolutionary Weapon of the Proletariat