The dialectic as I understand it

This article does not necessarily express my doctrine´-or-intellectual point of view, but rather expresses the point of view of Marxism as I have read it and as I understand it.

In this article we will try to answer the following questions from the point of view of materialist dialectics (or dialectical materialism,´-or-materialist dialectics,´-or-dialectical materialism (1),´-or-whatever name you like):

_Where does the struggle of opposites come from "in the first place"?

_How does the struggle -´-or-conflict - of opposites and their unity become possible at the same time?!

_What does the concept of the destruction of opposites mean? Does it mean nothingness´-or-does it mean transformation?
.....

To answer the first question, it is easy for us to guess and expect that any two opposites are bound to struggle and fight, so we must, in this case, ask a slightly deeper question: Where do the opposites come from in the first place?! Here, dialectical materialism provides its answer, and goes on to say that all beings in nature and their phenomena carry within them their “internal” contradictions,´-or-rather their “opposites,” and then the struggle and conflict occur between those opposites, and this struggle leads to some change... In other words, this contradiction and this conflict are internal, and they are not external to the change, but rather they are the essence and cause of this change... And of course, we can replace the word “change” with the word “movement,” only if the concept of movement is not-limit-ed to “changing place” only, but includes change from one place to another, change in quantity by increase´-or-decrease, change in creation´-or-corruption... etc. All of this We call it “movement”… and we sum up by saying: Reality is nothing but movement (2)´-or-becoming, and movement is nothing but the result of conflict, and conflict is nothing but the fruit of the contradiction that things and phenomena carry within themselves… and this hypothesis is the core of dialectical materialism in my opinion-;- based on what was presented, we do not need to hypothesize the existence of a mover outside the universe and its beings to bring about movement and development!

The above statement seems too abstract, so let us bring it down to reality a little, and let us consider the life of the rose that died yesterday in your pot. We contemplate and find that the rose carried within it an internal contradiction, because its life is a daily struggle against death, as cells die at every moment while other cells take their place - until death wins in the end -... The metaphysician looks at this issue.. He sees life and then sees death, and he thinks that they are "absolute" contradictions, and he overlooks the struggle that rages within the rose between the two opposites, and he overlooks the unity that unites this and that in their struggle. This is not far from what Mao Zedong said:

(The cause of every basic growth of things is not outside these things but within them, and in the contradictory nature of things. For every thing and every phenomenon there are internal contradictions within them. These contradictions are what generate the movement and growth of things. Thus, the contradictions latent in things and phenomena are the main causes of their growth).
As for Lenin, he summarized: (Growth is the struggle of opposites).


.....
(1) Dialectics, in its linguistic origin, has an ancient Greek word "dia legein", which literally means "argue", and was used at that time to express the struggle of contradictory ideas, and the generation of opposites from themselves is a fundamentally Platonic idea.
(2) Reality is nothing but movement, which is the idea of ​-;-​-;-Democritus.
.....
2_How can the struggle -´-or-conflict - of opposites and their unity be possible at the same time?

To answer this question, we must first define what we mean by the term “unity” of opposites. Suppose we have two opposites, say “x” and “y.” Their unity does not mean that they are identical´-or-that they have become one thing, but rather that the two opposites, in their struggle and conflict, are inseparable from each other. We saw this in the previous example of the rose. In its journey of “growth,” two opposites struggle-;- some cells “live” and others “die.” If we leave this rose aside and turn to man—because he is our goal—we will find that man’s “cognitive” journey, for example, was nothing more than a struggle between two opposites: ignorance and knowledge to overcome this ignorance. Without this ignorance, there would be no meaning to this knowledge. There is no absolute knowledge, nor absolute ignorance in our existence. Rather, every “knowledge is a struggle against ignorance.” I think that it has become… It is clear what we mean by the "unity of opposites.

" Even Comrade Sisyphus s journey does not deviate from what we have mentioned above, whether it is a descent´-or-an ascent: the weight of gravity pulling his stone downward, and the muscular force of lifting for Sisyphus, the question is which overcomes the other, and the opposites are in an inescapable unity!

It seems that we will stray far, so we return and say that according to the previous hypothesis, dialectical materialism finds itself obliged to say: There is no exploiting capitalist bourgeoisie without the existence of a proletariat toiling for it. Therefore, we have the right to reject bourgeois theories that promote "improving the living conditions of the proletariat" while keeping the bourgeoisie safe and sound!

I liked Mao s talk revealing the unity of opposites and their struggle:
(There is no death without life-;- no life without death... no decline without rise-;- no rise without decline-;- no happiness without misery-;- no misery without happiness... no farm worker without a farm owner-;- no proletariat without a bourgeoisie-;- no bourgeoisie without a proletariat... and so it is with all opposites that, on the one hand, conflict under certain conditions and, on the other hand, are linked to each other).
.....
3_ What does the concept of the destruction of opposites mean? Does it mean nothingness´-or-transformation?
I read on your esteemed website, heated debates about the Marxist concept of “the annihilation of opposites”, and the opinions of the esteemed commentators and distinguished writers varied. Some of them see it as a heresy that Marxism has no authority over! That it is one of “Stalin’s” heresies in order to get rid of his opponents. Some of them see it as the second alternative to the revolutionary transformation of society, either the revolutionary transformation of society “with its two conflicting classes”´-or-the “destruction” of the two classes, as if they do not know that the first alternative—that is, the revolutionary transformation of society—carries within it the destruction of the two classes! Some of them present to us—jokingly´-or-seriously—the concept of “eternal struggle” as a new universal law as if it were the product of their own ideas! I apologize in advance for the scholastic style that I will follow in the rest of the article-;- and I think it is the appropriate style in this regard.

And the truth is that the talk sounded strange to my ears, as if I were listening to people who are suffering hardships these days to reinvent the wheel... I think that such confusion and chaos is the result of a poor understanding of the concept of "the annihilation of opposites." The annihilation of opposites does not mean nothingness, but rather means "the transformation of opposites." The transformation of opposites leads to the elimination of both of them together, because just as socialism eliminates the bourgeoisie as an exploiting class, it simultaneously eliminates the proletariat as an exploited class. The bourgeoisie, for example, which is the ruling class, transforms into a subordinate class, just as the proletariat, which is the subordinate class, transforms into a ruling class. So the bourgeoisie does not return as it was, nor the proletariat as it was. So the destruction of the two classes is not an alternative to revolutionary transformation, but rather its fruit, O people of understanding!!

As for the issue of the eternal struggle and its “very modern” law that they have come up with! We pose this question: What happens when socialism arrives “hypothetically”? Doesn’t the struggle between classes disappear, and then does the concept of “the struggle of opposites” cease to -function-?´-or-in other words, doesn’t eliminating capitalism also eliminate the contradiction?

A: Socialism does not depart from the concept of contradiction because as long as society exists, as long as the contradictions that make up society exist, and differences remain permanent: between the peasant class and the workers... between the village and the city... between manual labor and intellectual labor... so the end of the struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat does not mean the end of the struggle, even if it is closer to opposition than to contradiction. Lenin says, criticizing Buchris: (Contradiction and opposition are not one thing. The first disappears while the second continues in the socialist system) (1).

So we can now formulate the law of eternal struggle, and I have not found anything more appropriate than Lenin’s formulation of it as follows
: (Unity... opposites are conditional, temporary, fleeting, relative, while the struggle of opposites, in eliminating each other, is absolute, as is the case with growth and movement) (2)
.
Note:
I do not like the term “the annihilation of opposites,” because annihilation in Arabic can mean “nothingness,” and I prefer the term “the transformation of opposites,”´-or-“the elimination of opposites.” References (1) Lenin: Philosophical Notebooks (mentioned by Mao Tse
- tung: “On the Opposition,” and we quoted it from The Principles of Marxist Philosophy by George Politzer, Modern Library Publications, Sidon, Beirut, p. 154 (2) The same previous reference, p. 14 (3) Articles by the author of the article https://www.ahewar.org/debat/show.art.asp?aid=433292 9/18/2014 https://www.ahewar.org/debat/show.art.asp?aid=432811 9/14/2014 https://www.ahewar.org/debat/show.art.asp?aid=432627 9/13/2014

Rate the article
Bad	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Very good
Result : 100%							Participated in the vote : 1