Dialectical Materialism, Science, and the Concept of Matter
"Long live the new Soviet intelligentsia, flesh of flesh, blood of blood of the Soviet people!"
Introduction
In the course of the Party’s development, it is natural for us to consistently reflect on our worldview. Our worldview must encompass a general understanding of the reality around us. We need these general ideas to exert an active influence on our surroundings. The builders of socialism-communism require knowledge about the course of nature and society to transform them and direct them in service of human needs.
But is it true, as some argue, that the natural sciences alone offer comprehensive knowledge and practical methods for transforming the world and liberating the working masses from poverty and exploitation? Should Marxism, as some argue, abandon references to the natural sciences due to differences in how they define phenomena in the world around us? Can Marxism, without drawing on the natural sciences, still guide us toward revolutionary transformation? Further, should Marxist philosophy, dialectical materialism, simply equate philosophical definitions with those provided by the natural sciences?
With this article, I offer a brief and introductory attempt to answer these questions, which have arisen in the course of the ideological development of our cadres and candidates in the CWP.
On Science
The scientific philosophy of Marxism is called dialectical materialism. While most sciences study specific things or laws—such as how plants grow or how planets move—Marxist-Leninist philosophy examines the most general laws that shape everything in the world: nature, society, and the development of human thought. It is a science that helps us understand how everything changes and develops, how we learn about the world, and how we bring about its revolutionary transformation.
It is important to clarify the purpose of science and its respective fields. Each science provides knowledge about a particular part or aspect of reality. For example, astronomy studies celestial bodies, biology studies organic life, history studies human society, and physics studies matter and energy. These sciences study laws that govern particular natural phenomena. Collectively, they constitute what we refer to as the “natural sciences,” because they deal with the natural world.
The natural sciences are relatively changeable, shaped both by generations of human industrial activity (industry being the practical relationship between humans and nature) and by our investigations into observed natural processes. For example, recent developments in quantum physics and technology have given us atomic clocks, quantum sensors and computers, and laser interferometers. The development of these technologies provides new insights that are used to improve materials and methods. The depth of what we once knew and how we even defined phenomena is challenged with each leap in the natural sciences, which in turn advances humanity’s practical activity.
Understanding of the processes of nature cannot be fully achieved without considering our practical activity—activity directly expressed in the development of the productive forces. Quantum sensors, for example, allow us to explore environments where GPS cannot reach, such as underwater or inside tunnels. They enable more precise studies of the brain than traditional devices and deepen our understanding of Earth’s gravitational and magnetic fields. Laser interferometers, used in semiconductor and automobile manufacturing, also confirmed Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity through the detection of gravitational waves.
The advancement of the natural sciences is not something distant or abstract that we reflect on merely for enlightenment. It is deeply connected to the most essential form of human activity—practice, industry, and the development of labor. Industry, the practical relationship between humans and nature, is the basic form of practice that reveals our real powers. Natural science, by contrast, is the theoretical relationship, the foundation of human knowledge, the real power of humanity, and our potential for production. Marx himself traced the empirical roots and practical role of natural science and recognized its important social significance.
Natural science alone is not self-sufficient. It does not have a history separate from the development of society. In this sense, industry taken together with social conditions—that is, social practice—is primary. Natural science takes its goals from practical activity and depends on practice to provide the means to achieve them. This is demonstrated by the role that science played in the development of capitalism. For example, Newton’s laws of mechanics provided the scientific foundation that made the Industrial Revolution possible, marking the third stage of private property in European history: the era of large-scale, machine-based industry. Science will have no less a role in the transition to a higher social formation: socialism-communism.
However, the development of natural science is not always in sync with the development of the productive forces. As we established, if technology and industry determine the aims of science and shape the limits of inquiry, then science can only advance under corresponding social conditions. These conditions are composed of definite classes and political relations, which can either assist or hinder the progress of science. As it was with slavery and feudalism, capitalism now hinders scientific progress.
To separate science from this foundation is not only a grave political error; it renders impossible the creation of a society in which scientific discoveries serve the purpose of liberating the working class, through central planning, for rest, creative development, leisure, and further discovery of the laws of reality. Divorced from this purpose, science remains subordinated to profit, and its immense potential continues to be squandered in militarism and war.
On Matter
The concept of matter is foundational to materialism. In dialectical materialism, “matter” is a philosophical category, an ontological descriptor. Just as the word “thing” is a more general concept than, for example, “book,” so too is “matter.” When a concept encompasses all objects and phenomena—from something as small as an atom to something as large as a building—it must be very general. This is precisely how we use the term “matter.” It includes all concepts, from the abstract notion of a “thing” to concrete entities like a grain of sand. It is therefore a very broad concept.
Dialectical materialism, as the philosophy of Marxism, defines “matter” as expressing the critical and common characteristics not of a single thing or group of things but of all things and concepts in the world. In other words, matter expresses everything that exists.
At this point, some might argue that the definition of matter in the natural sciences differs or that other scientific categories don’t align with how dialectical materialism defines them. So why not make the definitions the same? To begin, let’s recall what we stated earlier about matter: that it expresses the critical and common characteristics of all things and concepts in the world. How is this possible? Isn’t that too general? Here, it is important to understand that all things are material—they exist objectively, beyond and independently of our minds. But this is not their only commonality; they all possess another important quality.
Consider for a moment: What happens when we wash our face or hands with warm water? Or when we climb to the top of a beautiful view and look down on the trees, houses, roads, and tiny cars below? We are immediately overwhelmed by the colors, sights, and sounds. Generalizing from these experiences, we can say that both the warm water and the beautiful view possess qualities that affect our sense organs and evoke corresponding sensations.
Lenin defined matter as:
“…a philosophical category denoting the objective reality which is given to man by his sensations. Matter is that which, acting upon our sense-organs, produces sensation; matter is the objective reality given to us in sensation, and so forth.“
— Lenin, V. I., Materialism and Empirio-Criticism (1909), Chapter 2, Section 4: “Did Nature Exist Prior to Man?”
We argue that the natural sciences have no real reason to reject this definition. The assumption of the materiality of the world constitutes the basis of every genuine scientific view. Matter is simply everything around us; all that exists objectively—the whole of the vast external material world.
This philosophical definition of matter helps clarify a common mistake. Sometimes, people try to match the philosophical idea of matter with its definition in the ever-changing scientific picture of the world. For example, photons—tiny particles of light—have no mass. Dialectical materialism asserts that photons are still matter because they exist in the real world and affect our senses. However, some may claim photons are not matter because they lack mass. If one believes that having mass is the sole criterion for matter, they might incorrectly conclude that massless entities like photons or fields are immaterial. This line of thinking easily falls into idealist conceptions, which claim that some objective things—such as photons or fields—are immaterial despite producing sensations.
As scientific knowledge advances, our understanding of the structure, states, and properties of different forms of matter evolves. New discoveries refute old knowledge, but they do not challenge the philosophical concept of matter, which pertains not to the structure of the world but to its objective existence.
No matter how much our understanding of the world changes with new discoveries, these discoveries never prove the disappearance of matter. As Lenin stated, it is only the limit of our previous knowledge of matter that disappears. New discoveries further confirm the objective reality of matter.
Concluding Remarks
Dialectical materialism is not a philosophy that stands above or outside the natural sciences. Our understanding of the world does not arise from abstract philosophical speculation but from the investigations and discoveries of the natural sciences themselves. The scientific picture of the world is an ongoing, never-ending process. Yet it is constantly advancing, and with every new discovery, the materialist understanding of the world further unfolds. Every step forward in science is also a step forward for materialism. It is at the intersection of philosophy and the natural sciences that we encounter, imbued with revolutionary optimism, the creative development of Marxism-Leninism.
The creative development of Marxism-Leninism is more than defending the revolutionary line or mechanically repeating its basic ideas. It seeks to confront new challenges arising from technological and scientific progress, as well as from the ongoing development of class struggle and society. Marxism influences science both in theory and practice. It shows that science is not detached from the world but is a vital part of economic and social development. The natural sciences must be studied with the understanding that objective reality exists independently of us and is reflected in human consciousness.
For this reason, the cadres tasked with reorganizing the Communist Party must continuously develop Marxist theory. Life, in all its forms, is constantly changing and expanding; the theory that studies it must therefore grow and develop as well. To achieve this, the Party must remain closely connected to the scientific world, particularly to ongoing research.
We believe that familiarity with Marxist philosophy—dialectical materialism—and deepening its study is a prerequisite for a deeper understanding of nature, as well as for revealing the unscientific approaches in the natural sciences and successfully confronting idealism. Dialectical materialism is the philosophy that can support both the approach to the natural sciences and their development, while also consciously directing their achievements toward social progress. Without it, science will be forced to reflect its findings through the worldview of the ruling classes.