By Dr. Adnan Bozan

Marxist philosophy stands as one of the most influential intellectual traditions in modern history—not only in terms of ideas but also due to the social and political transformations it inspired. When speaking of Marxism, one cannot overlook the term “dialectical materialism,” the central concept that encapsulates the philosophical vision developed by Marx and Engels. But why this particular name? What makes Marxist philosophy both materialist and dialectical at the same time? To answer this question, we must trace the theoretical and historical roots of this concept.

In the history of human thought, few philosophies have combined theory and struggle, contemplation and praxis, as Marxist philosophy has. It is not a closed intellectual system, nor an isolated contemplative doctrine removed from life. Rather, it is a worldview that breathes through the lungs of reality, pulses with the rhythm of struggle, and insists that understanding the world is incomplete without seeking to change it. It is a philosophy that does not view thought as a silent mirror, but as a tool—a material force capable of engaging with reality and reshaping it.

When we examine the structure of Marxist philosophy, we find it built upon a composite term containing within it a creative tension between two poles: materialism and dialectics. This duality is not arbitrary. It results from a radical reformulation of the understanding of existence and motion, of the relationship between thought and matter, between humans and the world, between structure and history. At the heart of this concept lies a revolutionary philosophical moment that turned the Hegelian legacy upside down and dismantled the idealist illusions that had surrounded philosophy from Plato to Kant—reestablishing it on a historical and material foundation pulsing with conflict.

Marxist philosophy was not born in a vacuum; it emerged from the ruins of centuries of Western philosophical thought that oscillated between Cartesian dualism and idealist enclosure. It went beyond Feuerbach’s critique of religion and Hegel’s absolute dialectic. It borrowed the materialist inclination from the former and the dialectical dynamism from the latter—but it reassembled them into a new unity where matter is no longer static and dialectics is no longer idealist.

Here, at the core of this new synthesis, the revolutionary nature of Marxist thought becomes clear: it does not merely describe the world or contemplate it—it asserts that the world can only be understood as a world in perpetual transformation. Authentic thought, according to this view, is not one that passively reflects change, but one that roots it and incites it. Thus, calling Marxist philosophy “dialectical materialism” is not a mere technical label—it is a declaration of stance, a designation of a front: it stands in opposition to contemplative idealism and static materialism alike, establishing a third position—one of movement, conflict, and history.

Dialectical materialism, then, is not merely a philosophical term—it is a method of perception, a vision of reality, a theory of history, and an affirmation that the world evolves only through its internal contradictions. Just as nature changes through the struggle of its forces and society transforms through class conflict, thought itself develops through its dialectical engagement with reality—through its friction with matter, not detachment from it.

From this perspective, the term dialectical materialism acquires its deeper meaning: it is not an external descriptor of Marxist philosophy, but its essential key—its starting point, and its compass, guiding both its theoretical and practical directions. It is the philosophy that believes truth is not extracted from contemplation but from practice; that thought does not transcend reality, but immerses in it and is shaped through it.

To understand why Marx and Engels chose this particular concept to define their philosophy—and why Marxism cannot exist without this dialectical bond between materialism and dialectics—we must return to the roots: to the idealist metaphysics that dominated Europe, to the Hegelian revolution in understanding history, to French materialism, and to Marx’s inversion of these systems. Only then can we see how dialectical materialism was born from a long intellectual struggle, and from a philosophical will that saw thought not as consolation, but as a weapon.

First: Materialism as a Philosophical Stance

"Materialism" in philosophy refers to the doctrine that sees matter as the fundamental substance and that objective reality exists independently of human consciousness. This stance rejects idealist philosophies that place the “idea” or “consciousness” as the foundation of all existence, such as Hegel’s philosophy, which claimed that history and reality arise from the evolution of the “Absolute Idea.”

Marxism, by contrast, adopts a strict materialist position. Karl Marx argued that material reality—especially the material conditions of life (economy, means of production, social relations)—determines human consciousness, not the other way around. In Marx’s words: “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their social being, but their social being that determines their consciousness.”

Thus, thought is merely a reflection of material reality within the human brain. This makes Marxism a “materialist” philosophy in the strict philosophical sense of the term.

Throughout philosophical history, the question of existence has been one of the most fundamental and unresolved: What is the primary origin of reality? Is it thought or matter? Consciousness or nature? In answering this question, philosophy, since its dawn, has been divided into two opposing currents: idealism and materialism. Idealism, as represented in the philosophies of Plato and Hegel, posits that the essence of truth lies in thought, spirit, or the “Absolute Idea.” Materialism, on the other hand, views the world as existing in and of itself, independently of our perception, and considers what we call consciousness or thought to be a secondary product of this material reality.

Materialism, therefore, is not a partial viewpoint but an ontological and epistemological system that rearranges the relationship between human and world, consciousness and existence, thought and the material structure of life.

1. Materialism: The Essential Definition

"Materialism," as a philosophical concept, refers to the position that matter is the sole substance of existence, and that all phenomena—including thought, consciousness, religion, art, and culture—can ultimately be explained within the framework of material conditions. In other words, the material world exists outside and independently of consciousness, and does not require our perception to exist. Consciousness, in this view, is merely a reflection of this objective world within the human brain.

In this sense, materialism shifts the center of philosophical gravity—from the heavens to the earth, from idea to experience, from metaphysical abstraction to tangible reality. It does not deny the existence of thought, but rather places it in its natural context: as a biological and social product of a material being living under material conditions.

2. Materialism vs. Idealism: A Critique of Hegel

At the heart of this stance, Marxism positions itself as the most developed form of philosophical materialism. Marx inherited the dialectical method from Hegel, but he turned it on its head. Hegel, as an idealist, believed that “the Idea” (or Spirit or Reason) is the origin, and that the real world is merely its manifestation. For him, history is a dialectical unfolding of the Absolute Idea, realizing itself through contradictions until it reaches full self-awareness.

Marx saw this as an inversion of reality. Thought—no matter how great—cannot exist apart from the material conditions that produce it. It is not the “Idea” that creates reality; rather, material reality produces thought, shapes it, and gives it content. Marx expressed this in his famous statement:

“It is not the consciousness of men that determines their social being, but their social being that determines their consciousness.”

In this sense, Hegel’s philosophy—despite its dialectical depth—was idealist, because it made thought the origin. Marx, on the other hand, developed the materialist position by merging Hegelian dialectics with materialism, making the evolution of material reality the foundation for understanding change, rather than the evolution of ideas.

3. Historical Materialism vs. General Materialism: A Necessary Distinction

It is important to distinguish between general philosophical materialism and the historical materialism developed by Marx. The former maintains that the world is inherently material and that all phenomena can be explained through material interactions. Historical materialism, however, applies this materialist vision to human history, interpreting social transformations, revolutions, political systems, religion, and culture as outcomes of evolving material life conditions.

Marx did not settle for being a materialist in the general sense; he aimed to found a new science of history, based on understanding how relations of production, ownership of the means of production, and class structures generate the form of the state, modes of thought, and value systems. Thus, history does not move by the will of kings or the ideas of philosophers, but by the force of the economic base that determines all superstructural elements.

4. Consciousness as a Material Product: How Is Mind Produced from Matter?

Human thought, in Marxist conception, is not a mysterious force or a transcendent power. It is a neuro-social function that arises from the complexity of the human nervous system and from one’s immersion in social reality. The brain—as a material organ—produces consciousness just as the liver produces bile, to borrow the expression of Feuerbach, one of Marx’s influences. Yet this consciousness is historically conditioned; it is not neutral, but reflects class position, interests, labor conditions, and tools of production.

Marxism does not claim that humans are programmed robots, but it rejects the notion that ideas fall from the sky or arise from some “spiritual intuition.” Humans always think from a particular material standpoint: from their needs, environment, social relations, and historical context. Hence, changing material conditions leads to changes in modes of consciousness, which is why social revolution, for Marx, is essential for liberating thought—not merely preaching liberating ideas without altering reality.

Conclusion

Materialism, at its core, is a comprehensive philosophical stance that denies the primacy of the “idea” and affirms that matter—not as inert substance, but as living, dynamic reality—is the foundation. Marx revolutionized materialism by merging it with Hegelian dialectics to produce “dialectical materialism,” which does not see the material world as static, but as a constantly changing, conflict-ridden process.

Thus, Marxist philosophy, beginning from "materialism" as a philosophical stance, does not aim merely to understand the world, but to change it—not through contemplation, but by transforming the material conditions that generate and regenerate consciousness.

Second: Dialectics as a Method of Thinking

But Marxism is not a static or mechanical materialism—it is dialectical materialism. Here enters the second element in its designation: “dialectics,” which is the method of thinking that views reality as being in a state of constant motion, perpetual change, and intrinsic contradiction between its components.

Dialectics means that the world cannot be understood by examining its parts in isolation, or as if they are static. Rather, it must be grasped as a network of evolving and interacting relationships, where every phenomenon carries within itself its own contradiction, and change arises from the conflict of opposites.

This dialectical method was developed in classical German philosophy, especially in the work of Hegel, who argued that the development of ideas and history occurs through a triadic process: thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.

If “materialism” represents the ontological foundation of Marxist philosophy, then “dialectics” is its methodological spirit. Marxism does not simply affirm the material nature of the world—it insists that this world can only be understood as a dynamic, changing, contradictory, and ever-developing reality. Thus, Marxism unites two perspectives: a materialist stance that affirms the primacy of matter over thought, and a dialectical method that explains the development of matter and human relations through contradiction, struggle, and movement.

But “dialectics” is not merely a way of thinking or a theoretical tool—it is a comprehensive method for understanding reality. It rejects static, reductionist, and metaphysical views that see phenomena as separate and unchanging entities. In contrast, dialectics proposes a vision of the world as an open process, in which everything develops from within, through interaction with others, and through the struggle of opposites.

1. The Dialectical Essence of Reality: Motion, Not Stillness

Dialectics is not just a logical model for the progression of ideas—it is, above all, a way of understanding the very nature of reality. In the dialectical method, reality is not something fixed or complete; it is in a state of constant transformation. Every being, every system, every phenomenon contains within itself the seeds of its own dissolution because it harbors internal contradictions. These contradictions do not dismantle the entity from outside, but rather propel it to transcend itself, to evolve, to rise to a new level of existence.

Thus, motion becomes a fundamental law of being, not an exception. The world does not move because of some external force, but because it is internally contradictory. From this contradiction emerges dynamism, and from dynamism springs history.

For this reason, Marxism—unlike mechanical or positivist materialism—does not merely observe phenomena as they are, but investigates their internal conflicts, the opposing forces tearing them from within, and the qualitative developments that emerge from the accumulation of quantitative changes.

2. Against Metaphysics: Relations, Not Essences

Metaphysics, in its traditional sense, tries to understand the world through fixed concepts and eternal essences. It assumes that things have independent “substances” and that their attributes are incidental. Dialectics turns this notion on its head: there are no isolated things, only relationships, interactions, and processes.

One cannot understand “the human being,” for instance, as a fixed essence or a being separate from society, but rather as the product of social-historical relations. One cannot understand the state, the market, values, or consciousness as eternal substances—they must be analyzed within the context of the conditions that produced them and the conflicts that shake them.

In this sense, dialectics is the death of essence and the birth of relation. It does not see the world as a collection of things, but as a woven structure of processes and transformations. This aligns it closely with the spirit of modern scientific thought—and even that which follows it.

3. Hegelian Dialectics and Its Influence on Marx

Dialectics did not originate with Marx. Its roots go back to Greek philosophy, particularly to Heraclitus, who said that “everything changes” and that “conflict is the father of all things.” However, the modern form of dialectics was developed by the German philosopher Hegel, who built a comprehensive philosophical system based on the “triadic dialectic”: thesis – antithesis – synthesis.

According to Hegel, an idea develops through its internal contradictions. It begins with a certain state (thesis), then encounters a logical opposition (antithesis), and from the conflict between the two, a new synthesis emerges that both transcends and includes them. Hegel applied this process to thought, history, religion, and politics, as expressions of the “spirit’s” development toward full self-awareness.

Yet Marx, while admiring Hegel’s method, criticized his idealism. He believed Hegel had presented dialectics upside down, making it a dialectic of ideas rather than of material reality. Thus, Marx famously stated:

“I stood Hegel on his head, or rather, I placed him upon his feet.”

Marxist dialectics does not begin with ideas—it begins with material reality: with relations of production, class struggle, need, and labor. It is a dialectic that lives in the heart of everyday life, not in the realm of the “Absolute Idea.”

4. Contradiction: The Engine of History in Marxism

At the core of the Marxist dialectical method lies the principle of contradiction. Every system—economic or social—contains within itself structural contradictions that drive it to change. This contradiction is not an incidental flaw—it is a fundamental law.

A clear example: in the capitalist system, there is a fundamental contradiction between labor and capital. The worker produces surplus value, while the capitalist appropriates it. This contradiction between the creators of wealth and the owners of the means of production generates crises, turmoil, class struggle—and ultimately revolution.

Thus, history—understood dialectically—is the history of class struggles, the history of contradictions between the productive forces and the social relations that constrain them.

5. From Quantitative Change to Qualitative Transformation

Dialectics does not stop at revealing contradiction—it also explains how change occurs. One of its key laws is the transformation of quantitative change into qualitative change. That is, the accumulation of small changes eventually leads to a qualitative leap.

Water that is gradually heated does not change its nature—until it reaches 100 degrees, at which point it boils and transforms into vapor. Societies are similar: crises accumulate, and everything appears stable, until a rupture occurs and the entire social structure is transformed, ushering in a new era.

This law, borrowed by Marxism from the natural sciences, applies to revolutions, cultural shifts, and even changes in forms of consciousness.

Conclusion

In Marxist philosophy, dialectics is not just a theoretical tool—it is a key to understanding the movement of history, the transformation of societies, and the evolution of consciousness. It rejects both rigid determinism and absolute stasis, placing contradiction at the heart of all real motion.

Thus, materialism and dialectics are integrated in Marxism: the former affirms the primacy of material reality, while the latter explains how that reality changes, why it never remains static, and why it always contains within itself the seeds of its own transformation.

Third: Marx Turns Hegel's Dialectic Upside Down

Although Marx was influenced by Hegel's dialectic, he believed that Hegel stood on his head—and needed to be turned on his feet. While Hegel believed that reality arises from the evolution of the "Idea," Marx took the exact opposite stance: the Idea is nothing but a product of material reality.

Marx wrote:
"The Hegelian dialectic stands on its head. We must turn it right side up again, in order to uncover the rational kernel within the mystical shell."
Thus, Marx did not reject the Hegelian dialectic outright, but stripped it of its idealistic character and made it materialist. Instead of being a dialectic of the development of the "Idea," it became a dialectic of the development of material reality.

When Karl Marx looked at Hegelian philosophy, he did not see a false system, but an inverted one. To Marx, Hegel’s dialectic carried immense explanatory power—but it was upside down, walking on its head instead of its feet. Therefore, Marx did not discard the dialectic, but restored its balance—he turned it upright, as he put it, to reveal the “rational core” beneath the “mystical shell.”

This shift from idealism to materialism was not merely a philosophical correction, but a methodological revolution. Marx transformed the dialectic from a clash of ideas in the mind of the “Absolute Spirit” into a historical struggle within material social and economic structures. With this methodological reversal, “dialectical materialism” was born—the dialectic now grounded in real-world conditions instead of floating in the realm of abstract thought.

1. From “Idea” to “Material Reality”

At the heart of Hegelian philosophy lies the belief that true being is “the Idea,” and that history is merely the process by which the Idea achieves self-consciousness. Thought—not matter—produces the world and leads history through dialectical motion. Thus, despite the revolutionary tone of Hegel's method, he remains within the bounds of idealism, viewing the real world as merely a manifestation of the Idea.

Marx, however, rejected this idealist inversion and asserted that material reality is the foundation, and thought is merely a secondary product of objective material relations. In this context, Marx wrote:

“It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but their social being that determines their consciousness.”

Here, the gap between philosophy and life, between thought and society, between theory and practice is closed. Philosophy becomes a tool for understanding a changing, contradictory, and concrete world—not just a medium for abstract contemplation.

2. The Hegelian Dialectic: An Idealist Structure

Hegel did not deny reality, but saw it as a manifestation of the Idea. He expressed the movement of history through the triadic logic of thesis – antithesis – synthesis, as the self-development of the Idea. In this view, every stage is overcome by a higher one in an ascending spiral toward the full realization of Reason in history.

Yet this dialectic, beginning and ending with the Idea, forms a kind of closed logical circle, bound to its contemplative nature. Even the state—for Hegel—is the embodiment of the Absolute Idea in history, a manifestation of the Spirit rather than a structure produced within a specific socio-economic context.

Marx, who had studied with the Young Hegelians, adopted the dialectical method but rejected its idealist content. He realized that this dialectic must not revolve in the abstract realm of ideas, but be applied to the social and historical reality—the living conditions of human beings.

3. Marx: Dialectic as a Science of Material History

When Marx turned Hegel's dialectic right side up, he was not simply changing the angle of view—he was shifting the center of gravity from the Idea to the social structure. The Marxist dialectic thus became a method for analyzing contradictions within class society, not for contemplating the evolution of consciousness.

In this framework, dialectic becomes a tool for analyzing:

• Class struggle as the engine of history.
• Relations of production as the base structure generating culture, politics, religion, and consciousness.
• Revolution as the dialectical overcoming of a contradictory system.

Marxist dialectics is not a play of words or abstract concepts—it is a dialectic of living material reality, where things do not change because ideas change; rather, ideas change because reality has changed.

4. “Demystification”: Rationality Instead of Spirituality

In his critique of Hegel, Marx used a highly precise expression:
"The Hegelian dialectic stands on its head. We must turn it right side up again to uncover the rational kernel beneath its mystical shell."

This phrase highlights the tension between Hegel’s mystical tendency—his focus on Spirit, Idea, and metaphysics—and Marx’s rationalism, which sees the world as intelligible through its material, social, and economic laws.

Thus, “demystification” means transforming the dialectic from a mysterious logic of the Idea into a scientific tool for understanding real history. This is exactly what Marx did when he redirected philosophy toward practice and change, rather than contemplation and submission.

5. Thought as a Product of Reality

Marx’s inversion was radical: thought, in itself, does not create the world—it emerges from it. Consciousness is not the primary cause but a historical result. Culture, law, and morality are not independent givens; they are reflections shaped by the structure of material production.

This view undermines idealist philosophies that grant supremacy to the Idea, and restores the human being as a productive agent who shapes himself through labor and transforms the world—not merely through thought, but through action, struggle, and praxis.

In conclusion, when Marx turned Hegel's dialectic on its feet, it was not just a theoretical correction—it was the founding act of a new method for understanding and transforming the world. He freed the dialectic from its idealist prison and rooted it in the soil of real history, where humans struggle for survival, and consciousness becomes a mirror of life’s contradictions.

Marxist dialectics, then, is not a repetition of Hegel—it is a creative negation. It is a movement from contemplation to action, from Idea to matter, from philosophy to revolution.

Fourth: Dialectical Materialism as a Theory of Social Change

At the heart of the Marxist project, philosophy was not an end in itself, but a means to understand the world with the aim of changing it. As Marx famously stated in his Theses on Feuerbach:

“The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.”

This statement encapsulates the radical shift Marx introduced to the function of philosophy: it was no longer merely a tool for theoretical interpretation, but a practical critique of reality. Herein lies the significance of dialectical materialism, one of the most radical theories for analyzing and understanding the movement of societies and history.

Dialectical materialism is not a ready-made theory, but a method for understanding transformation and contradiction within social structures, and how these structures change and are transcended through struggle. It is a reading of history not as a collection of isolated events, but as a dialectical process governed by contradictions within material structures—producing revolutions, collapses, renaissances, and transcendence.

1. What is Dialectical Materialism?

Dialectical Materialism is the philosophical method developed by Marx and Engels, based on the fusion of materialism as an understanding of reality, and dialectics as a method of thinking and interpretation.

• On one hand, materialism posits that material reality is independent of consciousness, and that existence precedes thought.
• On the other hand, dialectics asserts that material reality is not static or linear, but moves through contradiction, conflict, and transformation.

Dialectical materialism rejects both the rigid mechanistic view of the world and the idealist spiritual one. It sees both nature and society as being in a state of constant becoming. Understanding this world does not occur through dissection and analysis in isolation, but by studying the internal dialectical relationships within structures.

2. Contradiction as the Engine of History

At the core of dialectical materialism lies a fundamental concept: internal contradiction. This means that every social structure contains within itself opposing, conflicting elements that interact and contradict each other—and it is these contradictions that propel history forward.

Examples:

• In a class society, there is a struggle between the owning class (bourgeoisie) and the working class (proletariat). This conflict is not incidental, but a consequence of the system’s own structure.
• In capitalism, the contradiction between the unlimited accumulation of capital and the basic needs of the vast majority leads to economic, political, and eventually social crises.

Thus, according to dialectical materialism, social change does not come from outside but emerges from the objective contradictions within the existing system. Revolution, then, is not a utopian act, but a historical necessity born of the system’s inability to sustain itself.

3. From Base to Superstructure

In Marx’s theory, society is composed of:

• The economic base: which includes the mode of production and relations of production—i.e., the economy and material interests.
• The superstructure: which includes the state, law, religion, philosophy, ideology, and culture.

Dialectical materialism views the superstructure not as autonomous, but as a direct product of the base. For example, the legal system or prevailing moral values are not created by abstract thinkers, but reflect the interests of the ruling class.

This does not mean the superstructure has no influence—it does—but its effect is secondary and dependent on the foundational economic base. However, in certain historical moments—especially during periods of transformation—the superstructure can interact dialectically with the base in complex ways.

4. Revolution: The Dialectical Negation of the Existing Order

One of the most significant outcomes of dialectical materialism is its view of social change as a dialectical process emerging from within the system itself. When internal contradictions reach an unsustainable point, revolution occurs as a “negation” of the old order.

This negation is not a nihilistic destruction, but what Hegel (and later Marx) called a “productive negation” or “sublation”: transcending the old system while preserving its progressive elements, and overcoming its oppressive or contradictory aspects.

Thus, revolution becomes:

• The inevitable result of material contradictions,
• A qualitative leap in the historical process,
• A conscious expression of the will of the class that embodies the future—the working class.

5. Praxis as the Criterion of Truth

Dialectical materialism is not merely an analytical theory; at its core, it is a theory of praxis. In The German Ideology, Marx and Engels wrote:

“Man must prove the truth, i.e., the reality and power, the this-worldliness of his thinking, in practice.”

Here, practical activity becomes the litmus test for all thought. What matters is not whether thought is logical, but whether it can interpret reality—and change it. Marxism is not a finished, static philosophy; it is a living method, evolving through practice, struggle, and analysis.

6. Applications of Dialectical Materialism in Understanding Society

Dialectical materialism is not only a philosophical tool—it is used to analyze and interpret:

• The history of class and revolution,
• Major economic transformations (e.g., the transition from feudalism to capitalism),
• The structure of the state and power relations,
• Cultural and ideological critique.

This methodology has become the foundation of what is now called Marxist analysis, employed by thousands of scholars in fields such as history, economics, sociology, cultural studies, and even literary criticism.

Conclusion: Dialectical Materialism as a Revolution in Thought and Action

Dialectical materialism, as both a method and a philosophical stance, is not just a theory for interpreting the world—it is a project for liberating it. It unites:

• Material realism, which sees the world as it is—not as it should be;
• With dialectical logic, which sees this world in perpetual transformation.

It is a philosophy that does not fear contradiction, but embraces it as the motor of history. A philosophy that does not believe in ready-made truths, but sees truth as something always in the making, shaped through practice.

Thus, it is not a theory of “what is,” but of “what must become”—not as a dream, but as an objective necessity rooted in the critique of reality and the active work of transcending it.

Fifth: From Dialectical Materialism to Historical Materialism

While dialectical materialism constitutes the philosophical framework for understanding the world and reality as being in a constant state of change due to contradiction and struggle, historical materialism is the application of this dialectical method to human history and society.

In other words, dialectical materialism concerns itself with understanding the movement of nature, thought, and reality in general, whereas historical materialism focuses on the dialectical movement of human societies and the laws that govern their historical development.

It is a shift from the question: “How does the universe move?” to the fundamental question:
“How does society change? Why do revolutions occur? How are empires and systems built—and why do they collapse?”

1. History Is Not a Series of Events, but a Material Structure
   In contrast to the liberal or idealist understanding of history—which views history as a series of great decisions, the actions of leaders and heroes, or the evolution of ideas—historical materialism declares:

“History is not the product of ideas, but the result of conflict between material forces in society.”

Here, Marx introduces his pivotal concept:
Mode of Production—that is, the manner in which material life is produced (food, shelter, tools, wealth...).

The mode of production includes two components:

• Forces of production: tools, technical knowledge, laborers.
• Relations of production: the social relations that organize ownership of the means of production, such as master and slave, feudal lord and peasant, capitalist and worker.

Thus, history is not understood through “will,” but through the development of the forces of production and the transformation of the relations of production.

2. Contradiction Between Forces and Relations: The Source of Major Transformations
   Historical materialism sees history as advancing when the forces of production develop to the point where the existing relations of production become a hindrance to further development.

Illustrative example:

• In feudal times, the forces of production (cities, trade, industries) evolved, but the relations of production remained feudal—peasants tied to the land and their lords.
• A contradiction emerged: the forces of production sought expansion, but the social structure restrained them.
• The result: bourgeois revolutions (like the French Revolution) that overthrew feudalism and paved the way for capitalism.

Hence, great historical transformations do not arise from nothing—or from noble ideas—but from deep material contradictions between the developing economic base and the outdated social and political structures.

3. Class Struggle as the Motor of History
   In The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels wrote:

“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”

Society, from the perspective of historical materialism, is not a homogeneous unit but a contradictory class structure. Each historical phase expresses a temporary balance of power between conflicting social classes.

• In ancient societies: conflict between slaves and masters.
• Under feudalism: between feudal lords and peasants.
• Under capitalism: between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

This class struggle is not always overt or violent, but it lies at the heart of every economic and social structure. It is the generator of change, revolution, and transformation.

4. Consciousness Is Not Prior to Being, but Its Product
   A foundational principle of historical materialism is:

“Social being determines consciousness—not the other way around.”

In other words, a person’s awareness, ideas, religion, and philosophy are not detached from their reality, but are reflections of the material structure in which they live.

For example:

• A factory worker’s consciousness is not shaped by books, but by their direct relationship to production, the conditions of their life, their oppression, and their relationship with the capitalist.
• Religion or law is not eternal; both shift according to the historical phase they reflect.

Thus, understanding ideas, culture, and traditions becomes contingent on understanding the class structure that produces and reproduces them.

5. History Does Not Move Randomly, but Through Stages
   In historical materialism, the development of societies is not understood as a chaotic motion, but as a progression through distinct stages of production modes:

• Primitive communism – where private property does not exist.
• Slave society – where human beings are enslaved as means of production.
• Feudal society – where the lord owns the land, and peasants work it.
• Capitalist society – where the capitalist owns the means of production, and the worker sells labor for a wage.
• Socialist society – a transitional stage.
• Communist society – where classes disappear, and private ownership of production is abolished.

Each stage contains its own internal contradictions, and each system generates the contradictions that give rise to what comes after it.

6. The Importance of the Superstructure in Times of Transition
   Although the economic base (infrastructure) determines the general course of history, historical materialism does not deny the role of the superstructure—ideas, religion, law, state, culture...

In times of crisis, ideology plays a decisive role in shaping the consciousness of the revolutionary class, organizing struggle, and accelerating change.

Revolution is not the automatic result of contradiction; it requires:

• Class consciousness,
• Political organization,
• Ideological program,
• Intellectual struggle.

Here, the “superstructure”—especially revolutionary thought—becomes a tool serving the rising forces of production.

7. From Historical Materialism to Critical Analysis
   Historical materialism is not merely an economic theory, but a comprehensive method for analyzing:

• Institutions,
• Political history,
• Religion,
• Education,
• Media,
• Even language.

Many thinkers have expanded this method beyond Marx, such as:

• Antonio Gramsci (cultural hegemony),
• Louis Althusser (ideology and ideological state apparatuses),
• Immanuel Wallerstein (world-systems theory), among others.

Conclusion: Historical Materialism as a Theory of Change and Liberation
Historical materialism is not just a materialist reading of history—it is a tool for liberation. It reveals that:

• Human reality is not driven by individual wills, but by material and economic structures.
• Social classes are not eternal—they are historically contingent.
• Injustice is not fate—it is the result of a struggle that can be overcome.
• History is not made by heroes, but by the people.

Thus, the Marxist view of history becomes a liberating act—it does not merely interpret the past but shows how to change and transcend it, and how to build a more just future.

Sixth: The Difference Between Dialectical Materialism and Mechanical Materialism

Before Marx, there were materialist currents—such as 18th-century materialism (Descartes, Holbach, La Mettrie...)—but they were mechanical materialism, which viewed the world as a machine and the human being as a passive entity subject to rigid determinism.

Marxism transcended this narrow perspective, as dialectics within it sees matter not as static, but as in constant motion, change, and conflict. Nature, society, and even ideas move according to internal conflict, contradiction, and qualitative change resulting from quantitative accumulation.

Thus, "dialectical materialism" in Marx and Engels is fundamentally different from "mechanical materialism", which explained everything through linear causal relationships, lacking any internal dialectics.

Materialism Before Marx… But!

Marx was not the first to speak of “matter” as a principle for interpreting reality. Many materialist philosophers preceded him, especially in the 17th and 18th centuries, in what is known as “classical materialism” or “mechanical materialism”, associated with thinkers such as:

• Descartes (though dualist, he conceived of the body mechanically),
• La Mettrie (who wrote the famous Man a Machine),
• Holbach (who saw humans as entirely subject to the laws of nature),
• Feuerbach (who sought to interpret religion as a reflection of material needs).

However, this materialism—despite its progressive role in its time—remained, in Marx's view, limited, for it viewed the world and human beings through a static mechanical lens, lacking internal contradiction or dialectical movement.

1. Mechanical Materialism: Linear, Static, Deterministic

The main features of mechanical materialism can be summarized as follows:

• The world is seen as a set of atoms or bodies moving in a void, mechanically, like a machine.
• The human being is understood as merely a physical object subject to external influences, with no active role for consciousness.
• Changes in nature and society are explained through linear causal relations, such as: “heat causes expansion,” or “environment determines personality,” without recognizing the complexity of relationships.
• Change is viewed only as a gradual accumulation, without leaps or qualitative transformations.

This materialism was essentially a reflection of Newtonian physics: the universe as a clock, where everything moves according to precise, external laws.

But Marx rejected this view as it negated the role of the subject, emptied history of its revolutionary energy, and turned humans into slaves of necessity.

2. Dialectical Materialism: Internal Contradiction, Motion, Qualitative Change

In contrast, dialectical materialism, as formulated by Marx and Engels, starts from a dynamic, conflictual, and historical vision.

In dialectical materialism:

• Matter is not static, but in motion and internal transformation.
• Every material or social entity contains internal contradictions that drive it toward change.
• Change doesn’t occur in a simple mechanical fashion, but through quantitative accumulation that leads to qualitative transformation. For example:
• (a) Water gradually heats up until it reaches boiling point—then it turns into vapor: a qualitative shift after quantitative build-up.
• (b) Relationships are not linear, but dialectical, where each side affects and is affected, and each phenomenon changes within a network of contradictions.

Here we see Marx’s influence from Hegel’s dialectic, but—as explained earlier—Marx reverses Hegel’s idealist dialectic into a materialist one: the conflict is not between "ideas", but between material forces and social classes.

3. Fundamental Difference: Rigid Determinism or Historical Dialectics?

Thus, mechanical materialism offers a deterministic, closed interpretation of the world, while dialectical materialism opens the door to understanding change, revolution, and history as the outcome of internal conflict.

4. Why Did Marx Reject Mechanical Materialism?

Marx rejected this older materialism because—despite its opposition to metaphysics—it failed to grasp historical dynamism. It’s like someone trying to explain the French Revolution simply by analyzing bread prices, or who sees class oppression as a mere by-product of environmental conditions.

Marx was searching for a philosophy capable of explaining radical change, negation, transcendence, and revolution. Mechanical materialism could not offer this, because it:

• Sees only the world as it is,
• Leaves no role for revolutionary consciousness,
• Is powerless in the face of rupture or qualitative leaps.

Hence came dialectical materialism as a revolutionary materialism, able to grasp reality—not just as it is—but as it ought to be, as a process in motion, full of contradictions and pregnant with the potential for change.

5. The Importance of This Distinction in Understanding Marxism

Much of the misunderstanding of Marxism—especially in Stalinist applications—arose from conflating dialectical and mechanical materialism.

• When history is reduced to mere economic determinism, we’re facing a mechanical reading of Marxism.
• When culture, subjectivity, or ideology are denied any role, under the claim that “everything is economic,” we are left with a rigid caricature of Marxism.

But true Marxism—as developed by Marx, Gramsci, Lukács, Politzer, and others—is a dynamic, open, conflict-driven materialism that believes in historical change made by people through class struggle.

Conclusion: From Machine to Living Being

Mechanical materialism views the world as a machine, society as a machine, and the human as a cog in that machine.

In contrast, dialectical materialism sees the world, society, and the human as living beings—breathing, contradictory, sick and healing, changing from within, shaping their own destiny.

In this sense, Marx was laying the foundation for a philosophy that is not merely an interpretation of the world, but a tool for transforming it.

Seventh: Application to History and Society – "Historical Materialism"

The most significant application of dialectical materialism in Marxist thought was in the field of understanding history and its development. Here, the concept of "historical materialism" was born—an applied extension of Marxist philosophy to history.

Historical materialism views human history as evolving through class struggle, which arises from the contradiction between the forces of production (tools, technology, workers...) and the relations of production (ownership, power, social classes). This struggle is the driving force of history.

Thus, societies do not change because of "new ideas" or "inspiring leaders," but due to transformations in the material structure of class conflict. This aligns fully with the dialectical materialist method.

From the Philosophy of Matter to the History of Struggle

If dialectical materialism explains how matter moves and changes, then historical materialism explains how human history moves and produces its transformations. Just as nature changes due to internal contradictions, societies change due to class struggle—this is the core of the Marxist view of history.

In this sense, historical materialism is neither a "ready-made theory" nor a "dry law"; it is an analytical method for understanding the structure of societies and their evolution. It is based on the study of the infrastructure (economic base) and its relationship with the superstructure (culture, politics, religion).

1. Theoretical Foundations: How Do Societies Change?

Marx argues that societies do not change due to individual wills or idealist thoughts, but because the economic structure itself develops, generating contradictions and class conflicts that lead to the collapse of the existing system and the rise of a new one.

This understanding is based on two core concepts:

1. a) Forces of Production: These include the material means of production—machines, land, resources, technology, laborers.
2. b) Relations of Production: These refer to the social relationships governing production: who owns? who works? who controls the surplus?

When the forces of production develop beyond the existing relations of production, a class contradiction emerges that leads to revolution. As Marx said:

"At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production... From being forms of development of the productive forces, these relations turn into their fetters."

2. Infrastructure and Superstructure: Which Determines the Other?

At the heart of historical materialism lies the well-known distinction between:

• Infrastructure: the economy, the relations of production.
• Superstructure: law, the state, religion, philosophy, ethics, ideology.

Marx does not deny the influence of the superstructure, but he sees the economy as producing the general shape of the superstructure. The state is not the "will of the people" but rather a mechanism for regulating class contradictions.

This does not imply economic determinism, but rather that analysis begins with the economy without ending there. The infrastructure generates the superstructure, but the latter may, in turn, reproduce the status quo or contribute to changing it, depending on the balance of forces.

3. Class Struggle: The Motor of History

Marx and Engels wrote in The Communist Manifesto:

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."

In every historical stage, a dominant class imposes relations of production that serve its interests, while an oppressed class resists this structure—until the contradictions explode in the form of revolution. For example:

• In slave society: struggle between masters and slaves.
• In feudal society: struggle between lords and peasants.
• In capitalist society: struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

Thus, history becomes a succession of class contradictions and revolutions that produce new systems—until the ultimate goal is reached, according to Marx: a classless society.

4. From Linear to Dialectical History

Historical materialism does not view history as a straight line but as a dialectical process that unfolds through:

• Negation of the negation: Each system contains its own contradiction that produces its negation (revolution), and the new system negates the old.
• Quantitative accumulation and qualitative transformation: Crises accumulate within the system until they reach a breaking point.
• Spiral progress: Not linear, but through leaps and cycles containing both old and new elements.

In this sense, historical materialism does not write history from above, but from the perspective of the oppressed classes, who were always the victims of official narratives.

5. Applications of Historical Materialism: From Marx to Gramsci

Marx applied this vision to European history, especially in his work Capital and his analysis of British capitalism. He showed how capitalism contradicts itself through:

• The exploitation of surplus value,
• The destruction of small producers,
• The driving of crises toward centers of power.

But Marxism did not stop with Marx:

• Engels expanded the concept in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State.
• Gramsci rethought the superstructure, emphasizing cultural hegemony.
• Althusser developed concepts such as Ideological State Apparatuses.
• Wallerstein applied the theory globally through the world-systems analysis.
• Lukács linked historical materialism to class consciousness and philosophy.

All of these thinkers contributed to making historical materialism a living method for understanding the world—not a closed dogma.

Conclusion: From Dialectics of Matter to Dialectics of History

Historical materialism, as the dialectical application of materialism to societies, presents a revolutionary worldview: nothing is fixed, no system is eternal, no power is everlasting. Everything moves, contradicts, and transforms.

Thus, the idea that emerged from the heart of philosophy—from the critique of Hegel and idealism—became a method for understanding nations, empires, revolutions, collapses, and new beginnings.

In the end, historical materialism doesn’t just tell you how the world was, but it inspires you to ask: how can it be?

Conclusion of the Study
From Reality to Change – The Spirit of Marxist Philosophy

Marxist philosophy has been called dialectical materialism because it succeeds in uniting a strict materialist vision of existence with a dynamic, dialectical method of thinking. This philosophy does not view reality as a static mass of fixed facts, nor thought as an independent, transcendent essence. Rather, it sees every phenomenon—no matter how still or self-contained it may appear—as a point of internal tension, a dynamic structure seething with contradictions and containing within itself the potential for change.

In this context, Marxism was not merely a reaction to Hegelian idealism, nor simply a development of classical materialism. It was a double transcendence: it went beyond mechanical materialism, which regarded reality as a machine governed by linear laws that ignored internal contradictions, and beyond Hegelian dialectics, which made thought the center of the universe—as if reality were merely a manifestation of an absolute spirit.
Marx did not reject the Hegelian dialectic; he uprooted it from its idealist foundations and grounded it in material reality. Material reality is the origin, and thought is its product—not the other way around. Perhaps the most important aspect of this Marxist reversal of dialectics is that it did not settle for interpreting the world through class relations and economic structures alone, but turned this interpretation into a revolutionary tool aimed at transforming reality rather than merely contemplating it.

What sets Marxist philosophy apart is its inseparability of theory and practice, of knowledge and liberation. For Marx, knowledge is not a pure contemplation of silent truths, but a weapon in the struggle to free humanity from the conditions of its alienation. That is why Marx wrote, in one of his most famous statements—now a slogan of modern revolutionary thought:

“The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.”

In this sense, dialectical materialism is not only a tool for understanding the contradictions of reality, but a method of liberation itself—because it reveals that what appears natural or eternal is in fact a historical construct, subject to change. Economic systems, social structures, even cultural and religious beliefs—all of these, from the perspective of historical materialism, are subject to struggle, and can be questioned, deconstructed, and overcome.

This organic connection between thought and history, between reality and conflict, between contradiction and change, is what grants Marxist philosophy its immense explanatory power—and what keeps it alive, even after a century and a half, at the heart of the great debates about justice, power, exploitation, liberation, and the human condition.

Marxism is not a closed doctrine, but an open dialectic that draws its legitimacy not from sacred texts, but from its ability to question reality and act upon it. It is not a philosophy of what is, but a philosophy of what could be. It does not merely explain misery, but stands with those who resist it, striving to make every act of knowledge a transformative act that transcends necessity toward freedom.

In the end, the essence of Marxist philosophy lies in this commitment to the human being in their struggle against the conditions of their alienation, and in its constant pursuit of making the world a place that can be just, reasonable, and livable—not through the promise of metaphysical salvation, but by reshaping the very material structures that produce injustice and inequality.
Thus, dialectical materialism is not only a key to understanding the structure of the world, but also a compass for changing it—toward a horizon of human possibility.

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

1. Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels, The German Ideology, Progress Publishers, Moscow,
   (Original work written in 1845-46, published posthumously)
2. Karl Marx, Capital: A Critique of Political Economy (Volume I), Translated by Ben Fowkes, Penguin Classics, 1990.
3. Karl Marx, Theses on Feuerbach, in Marx/Engels Selected Works, Volume I, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1969. (Especially the 11th Thesis: “The philosophers have only interpreted the world...”)
4. Friedrich Engels, Dialectics of Nature, International Publishers, New York, 1940.
5. Friedrich Engels, Anti-Dühring: Herr Eugen Dühring’s Revolution in Science,
   Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1947. (Especially Part I: Philosophy)
6. David McLellan, Karl Marx: A Biography, Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. (An authoritative academic biography of Marx with analysis of his philosophical development.)