What does dialectics have to do with communism?

Not a Thing? Or Everything?

The short answer to the above question is "nothing". Understanding dialectics does not lead to any particular political or economic viewpoint. Hopefully reading the first four pages of this web site have made this clear. Dialectics does make some assertions. For example, dialectics insists that everything changes through the movement of opposing forces. Such a description is certainly true of a competitive capitalist economy. Likewise contradictions and conflict certainly continued under socialism, with the dramatic fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 serving as a good example of quantitative change leading to qualitative change. So the longer answer is that dialectics has everything to do with communism just as it has everything to do with capitalism.

A Closer Look

There is no question that the dialectical materialist outlook is linked closely in the public's mind with communism. Some readers of this web site have dismissed the whole concept of dialectics expressed here as communist propaganda, even though, until this page, there has been very little material related to economics, politics, or socialism.

So what is the connection? The answer is that the creators of the dialectical materialist outlook were Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the writers of the Communist Manifesto, and chief proponents of the socialist movement that seized state power in Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, and many other places. Even the United States, that bastion of capitalism, has had many converts to Marxism in the past 100 years; for example, the Communist Party was quite influential in the 1930s, and a "New Left" sprang into life at the time of the anti-Vietnam war movement.

Marx and Engels used dialectical materialism to analyze society. They believed that the inherent conflicts within capitalism--i.e. the dialectical contradictions--would lead to a revolutionary seizure of power by the workers. On the last page of Das Kapital, Volume 1, Marx describes the death of capitalism, saying, "The expropriators are expropriated. The capitalist mode of appropriation, the result of the capitalist mode of production, produced 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 is the negation of negation." (Das Kapital, Gateway publishers, Chicago, 1962, page 356)

While Marx's biting critique of capitalism, fiery rhetoric and grand vision of a world with "co-operation and the possession in common of the land and of the means of production" (same page cited above) inspired generations of idealistic activists, in its traditional version, it has not withstood the test of history. The question is--why not? Is the problem with dialectical materialism as a philosophy, or is there a problem with Marx's economic theory?

Obviously to those who have visited the other pages of this web site, the argument here is that the problem with Marxism is not in dialectics, but in economics. Marxist economics is a complicated subject with lots of debates that have gone on for many decades. How can we get to the root of the problem without putting you, the reader, through voluminous research?

Fortunately, the 20th Century, as noted, was full of socialist revolutions and many years of experimentation. From this experience it is easier to see the pitfalls that Marx had not anticipated.

One important clue in science that indicates that a person is on the right track, is when he or she accurately predicts what is going to happen. In the case of socialism, one person who accurately predicted that socialism would fail was a German economist, Ludwig von Mises (there were several others but von Mises was the most prominent).

In his 1922 book, Socialism, von Mises argued that people are interested in "well-being and happiness" and that "The discussion always returns to the same point, the fundamental question whether the socialist order of society promises a higher productivity than capitalism." (quotes are from the 1951 Yale University Press edition) Writing at a time of overwhelming support for social democracy and/or communism in Germany, von Mises states, "The world inclines to Socialism because the great majority of the people want it. They want it because they believe that Socialism will guarantee a higher standard of welfare. The loss of this conviction would signify the end of Socialism." So what is his case?

The Calculation Problem

Von Mises grants that "socialism is one of the most ambitious creations of the human spirit," but quickly goes on to argue that the essential flaw of socialism is that, without markets, "socialism lacks the ability to calculate [prices] and therefore to proceed rationally". "No individual could so discriminate between the infinite number of alternative methods of production that he could make direct judgments of their relative value without auxiliary calculations. . . .Money calculation provides a guide amid the bewildering throng of economic possibilities." "With the best will in the world" socialism will be helpless, he argues. "The problem is not deciding what to produce--any socialist society can do that. The problem is to decide how to use the existing means of production most effectively to produce the desired goods. This requires economic calculation."

Marxists generally respond that prices should simply be set to equal costs. But how do you calculate costs without competitive markets to set prices? In Marxist terms, how do you calculate the socially necessary labor time to make a product? Hand-woven clothes are obviously a lot more labor intensive than machine made clothes, but is it really necessary to make all clothing by hand? Or, what if a factory is operating on outmoded equipment, or under poor management--is it fair to charge consumers based on their excessive cost?

Under a market system, the price is not really verified until someone buys the product. In that way, producers who have used inefficient production methods will not be able to compete, and will be forced to change or go out of business. Under socialism, or with monopolies under capitalism (e.g. think sole-source bids to Halliburton), prices do not accurately reflect socially necessary costs. Without rational methods of economic calculation, it can even happen that worthless products are produced; the spectacle of a Soviet shoe factory that produced thousands of terrible quality shoes that piled up on shelves unsold comes to mind here.

In his book summarizing the history of the debate, From Marx to Mises, David Ramsay Steele (Open Court Publishing Co., LaSalle Illinois, 1992) argues that Marxists seem "unaware that for the whole economy there would be billions of combinations of millions of projects, not to mention an infinity of different precisely defined ways in which each project could be executed." (page 125)

Bureaucracy and Decision Making

Not only would a socialist system be unable to allocate its resources efficiently, the decision making process itself would be a big problem. Steele says, "Nothing could be further from the aspirations of Marx and Engels than an oppressive state or a meddlesome bureaucracy, but their commitment to society-wide comprehensive industrial planning requires that the communist administration be an omnipotent state." (page 316)

Steele's argument is echoed by William Mandel, for many years the Soviet affairs commentator on KPFA radio. Mandel wrote in the October, 1991 KPFA folio, "What Marx failed to see was that the relatively democratic procedure of the market, stimulating hundreds of thousands (or millions) of owners to produce cheaper or better goods, would have to be replaced by the bureaucratic decisions of government planners, inevitably far fewer in number and therefore less democratic."

One alternative to a huge bureaucracy is for a socialist society to try a dictator. For example William Mandel recounts that "In the 30s, Stalin would personally phone every night each of the score of the largest mines and factories in the country, and ask how many tons of coal, pig iron, and steel, how many tractors and how many trucks have been produced that day." Such micromanagement of an advanced industrial economy today is simply out of the question.

One puzzle about socialism is resolved in a 1940 book by Trygve J.B. Hoff, Economic Calculation in the Socialist Society. Like von Mises, Hoff was able to accurately anticipate future events. Hoff argued that a socialist society can be more effective than a capitalist society in certain ways because it can marshall all of its forces to achieve limited goals. This explains how the Soviet Union was able to defeat Hitler and launch Sputnik, but could not compete with capitalism on the level of consumer goods. Similarly Cuba has great health care, education, and sports/cultural programs but is also severely lacking providing what we think of as basic necessities--a variety of food, toilet paper, pens, plastic bags, etc. (Of course, Cuba's problems are immensely intensified by the increasingly severe U.S. blockade.)

The downfall of the bureaucratic socialist model was not the fault of dialectics. It was the contradictions within Soviet style socialism--particularly its inability to produce goods in a rational and efficient way--that led to its collapse.

China Solves the Calculation Problem!

Mao Zedong followed the Soviet model by opposing the use of markets in building socialism.  Under Mao, the Chinese economy became stagnant with hundreds of millions of people living in extreme poverty.  When Deng Xiaoping succeeded Mao, he implemented market mechanisms and encouraged businesses.  In effect, Deng accepted the von Mises argument that the socially necessary labor time (i.e. most efficient and cost effective way to produce a commodity) requires markets.  The result has been that the Chinese economy has grown remarkably to replace the US as the largest in the world (based on purchasing power China passed the US in 2014)

For example, at one point China had 400 companies competing to produce electric vehicles.  By 2026 that number was down to about 40 companies, but the ruthless competition has ensured that China is making the most affordable and high quality cars in the world today.  But capitalists in China are not allowed to form Chambers of Commerce and make political donations the way they do in capitalist countries.  And China still controls key industries, banking, land use, and utilities.   

China argues that it has achieved a negation of negation, saying that the 1949 revolution negated markets controlled by capitalists, and the reforms initiated by Deng Xiaoping reinstated markets, but these are now controlled by the socialist government.  Chinese economists acknowledge that von Mises was right about the calculation problem and the need for markets, but they argue that a socialist society can be built with markets controlled by the government. By solving the calculation problem China has made great strides toward resolving the contradiction between the forces of production and the relations of production. China is using dialectical materialism to build a brighter future, just as we can all use dialectical materialism to make our lives better.

Back to Dialectics of Capitalism

So where does that leave us who live in capitalist societies?  What are the key contradictions we face today?  Here are four contradictions that could explode in a dialectical breaking point at any time:

1.  The environment - In his book, Eco-Economy, Lester R. Brown quotes Oystein Dahle, retired vice-president of Esso for Norway and the North Sea, who says, "Socialism [referring to the Soviet Union] collapsed because it did not allow prices to tell the economic truth.  Capitalism may collapse because it does not allow prices to tell the ecological truth." (Earth Policy Institute, W.W. Norton & Co, 2001, page 23)  Most of the world is ready to tax fossil fuels to head off the impending disaster of global warming, but the U.S., with an administration dominated by oil interests, is not. The melting of Greenland's glacier would raise the ocean level by 7 meters, an unthinkable disaster for which the world would not be likely to forgive the U.S.  Will the U.S. catch on?  How will this catastrophe be averted--or will it?  (Note that an increase in gas taxes would not necessarily be a tax increase at all; the money raised could simply be refunded through reduced income taxes.)  

Unfortunately there are other environmental disasters such as the dropping water supply, mass extinctions, toxic pollution. . . that are also serious threats to humanity's future.  For more information on these environmental issues contact the Center for Biological Diversity.

2.  Poverty - Continuing poverty of the Third World and even within the U.S. is a contradiction that the U.S. is ignoring or intensifying with its global pursuits.  Instead of moving toward a world without poverty and racial or national oppression, the desperation of the dispossessed is growing.  And desperate people can do desperate things.  Ending poverty would cost much less than the worldwide annual arms sales that perpetuate governments that do nothing to end poverty.   How will this contradiction be resolved?

3.  Nuclear war - The threat of nuclear war is also intensifying with wrong-headed leadership by the U.S.  Rather than working to defuse the arms race, the U.S. is talking about its plans to use a pre-emptive first strike, and to build a star wars missile system that will only antagonize the other nuclear powers.  Are we going to blow ourselves to bits rather than build an international federation to ensure peace?  For more information contact: Western States Legal Foundation  http://www.wslfweb.org/map.htm

4.  U.S. militarism and imperialism - The U.S. has over 500 military bases around the world.  It props up dictators who do its bidding.  It extracts oil and other minerals that leave countries despoiled and impoverished.  The 2026 war against Iran is a blatantly illegal attempt to control world resources.  China is advocating for a multi-polar world to end the era of U.S. imperialist dominance.  How this will come about is a key issue for the world to achieve.

Of course there are many other contradictions facing our society--as a society we need to address:


The only way these issues will be resolved is by a strong progressive movement supported by millions of people. Dialectics doesn't provide any blueprint, but it does show that change is possible, and inevitable. The question is will it be change for the better or for the worse--you can help decide.

For a discussion of which contradictions are the most important, read the essays "First Things First", and "What is the Principal Contradiction?"

Return to "What the Heck is Dialectics"