O. Yakhot: What is Dialectical Materialism?
First Talk:
The Subject Matter of Marxist Philosophy
Date: 1965
Source: What is Dialectical Materialism?, pp. 5-19
Translated (from Russian) by: Clemens Dutt
Published: Progress Publishers, Moscow
Transcription/HTML Markup/Proofreading: Mike B., June 2014
Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2014). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.
What is philosophy?
People have the most varied opinions
about it. "It is a most interesting, live
and profound science," many will say. But others will retort:
"I can get along without it." They believe they have no need
of it. This view has not arisen by accident. For many centuries
it was thought that philosophy was only for the elite, for
slave-owners and the bourgeoisie. Thus the opinion arose that
philosophy was something remote from ordinary life, difficult to understand and quite unnecessary. But let us think
for a moment whether we can actually do without it.
Some of you will be very surprised, perhaps, if I say that
throughout your conscious life you are guided by and adhere
to a definite philosophy. But this is actually so. A person who
lives in a particular society comes across hundreds and
thousands of phenomena. He thinks about what is happening
in his country and in others a long way off. He cannot help
thinking about natural phenomena too, wanting to penetrate
the "secrets" of the universe. When he reflects on such questions as where did the planets and stars come from, and the
Earth and all that exists on it; what happens to people after
death; what is happiness and what is the meaning of life, he
is reflecting on philosophical questions, regardless of whether
he is aware of doing so. And it is not a matter of idle curiosity.
He comes up against such questions all the time and everywhere. Whatever answer he gives it will always have a definite
philosophical meaning.
Here is an example. In the past, when peasants prayed for
rain during a drought, it implied that they had a definite
"idea" about such phenomena.
There is no need for me to show that that view was deeply
mistaken. But when, in order to prevent the disastrous effects
of drought, people construct irrigation works or till the soil
in such a way as to preserve moisture, is it not obvious that
they have their view about the rain and the world and what
takes place in it? They realise that the phenomena of nature
arise in a natural way without any need of divine aid. That
is a true view of the world.
The phenomena of social and political life, too, can be
looked at in different ways.
We are bound to draw the conclusion, therefore, that we
can only understand what takes place around us if we are
guided by a definite world outlook being the sum-total of
views about life, the world as a whole, and individual phenomena and events.
We need to have a general idea about the world, not in
order to be passively acquainted with the events taking place
in it, but in order to be able to influence them. Only the unity
of knowledge and deep ideological conviction leads to the
formation of an integral world outlook. The latter then plays
a very important part in our lives.
Let us imagine that two persons have been invited to join
a religious sect. One agrees but the other refuses. One is taken
in by the false arguments of the preachers, but the other
realises that it is all deception. They behave differently
because they differ in their understanding of reality or, as it
is called, in their conception of the world. One of them has
come to realise that man is the maker of his own happiness.
The other, however, has no such firm conviction and so he
looks for aid to some super power. They look on life differently. One does so correctly, the other incorrectly, because the
latter has not got a true view of the world or a correct world
outlook.
It turns out that we have recourse to philosophy more often
than is sometimes thought. It could not be otherwise. Lenin
wrote: " A socialist requires a well-thought-out and firmly held
world outlook, so that he may control the events and not the
events him,"1
In this connection, it may be asked: by studying physics,
chemistry, biology, astronomy and history do we not obtain a scientific idea of the world i.e., a true world outlook? Why
must we study philosophy as well? It is true, of course, that
we obtain definite knowledge by studying these sciences. But
they do not give us an integral world outlook, that is, one
with an inner unity.
A correct understanding of the world is necessary in
everyday life and this is given us by the Marxist-Leninist
world outlook, the theoretical basis of which is Marxist
philosophy. What then is philosophy?
The word "philosophy" is derived from two Greek words:
"phileein"—to love, and "phia"—wisdom, knowledge. You
will, of course, say that every science knowledge and in
this sense is wisdom. In that case it might be said that every
science is philosophy. But is this so?
It is true that every science gives knowledge but the nature
of this knowledge differs. Each science gives us knowledge
only of a particular sphere of reality: astronomy—of celestial bodies; biology—of plants, animals and man; history—of events in society. These sciences cannot give us knowledge of a whole nature, of the world as a whole. Yet such knowledge is vitally necessary.
For instance, we often encounter general questions about the
world. Was it "created", or has it existed eternally? Can
nature develop naturally, i.e., without any intervention of
mysterious, supernatural forces? The physicist knows, of
course, that there is nothing supernatural in the field of his
investigations. But this knowledge applies primarily to his
own sphere of research. What is required, however, is
knowledge that covers all natural phenomena without exception, and this the so-called definite sciences cannot give us.
Such knowledge is given by philosophy. It alone poses the
most genera questions of the development of nature and
society and attempts to solve them. That defines the subject
matter of philosophy, i.e., the range of questions that it
studies.
The subject matter of philosophy differs therefore from
that of the definite sciences which deal with particular spheres
of reality. What is this difference?
Physics, mathematics, biology and other sciences study
definite laws, those governing the development of part of the
phenomena of nature. Philosophy, however, studies the most
general laws, those which govern not some part, but all the
phenomena of nature, society and thought. Hence philosophy can be defined as the science of the most general laws of
development of nature, society and thought. Because of this
it gives people a definite world outlook, an idea about the
world around them. But why does this differ so much
among different people?
The partisanship of philosophy
Children in some West German
schools were asked to write an essay
on the subject: "What I would do
if I could do whatever I liked?" What were their answers?
One wrote: "I would blow up schools all over the world."
Another wrote: "I would drop bombs everywhere…I
would set fire to the house and I would jump into the river."
And this is what children in Soviet schools wrote on the same
subject: "I would free Negroes enslaved by the capitalists
and factory owners," wrote one. "The first thing I would
do would be to ban atom and hydrogen bombs," wrote
another.
Why are the children's answers so different? In the first
case they come from children brought up in a spirit of
contempt for people and imbued with a bourgeois world
outlook. In the second case they come from children taught
by schools to love their country, and to uphold peace
throughout the world. Soviet schools bring up children in
the spirit of the communist world outlook.
Such questions as what is the meaning of life and what
is happiness receive different answers in socialist and in
bourgeois society. In the latter, where everything is bought
and sold for money, happiness is primarily wealth. Many
regard that as the meaning of life. Therein lie the roots of
the philistine philosophy of the petty-minded individual.
People in socialist society, however, reject this philistine
philosophy. Their happiness lies in being respected by the
people with whom they work, in being respected by the society
for the sake of which they live. Their greatest happiness
to feel necessary to the collective, to their country,
to the people who are working to build a new, happy life. In
one of his early works, Marx wrote: "Experience exalts as
the most happy he who has brought happiness to the greatest
number of people."
Thus we see once again two approaches to the question, two world outlooks–the bourgeois and the proletarian.
If society is divided into hostile classes there cannot be
any common, single world outlook. One class has one philosophy, in the other class another. This is quite understandable. The life and status of the proletariat and working people differ from those of the bourgeoisie and exploiters. They react differently to events taking place in the world,
each has its own understanding of them. Hence they differ
in their world outlook or philosophy. That of the proletariat
is different from that of the bourgeoisie. There is no neutral
philosophy, i.e., one which does not serve a particular class.
Philosophy, as Lenin teaches, is always of a partisan
nature. That is to say, it defends partisan, class interests.
Hence contending parties in philosophy are to be found in
each historical period. Materialism and idealism are such
parties in philosophy.
Materialism and idealism
What is the meaning of these two
concepts? Take a look at things and phenomena in the world. Some of them, such as a stone, a
tree, a living organism, water, etc., we can touch with our
hands, see with our eyes, weigh and measure, and so on. They
exist outside and independently of man's consciousness. We
perceive them by means of our sense organs—those of sight,
hearing, touch, smell and taste. But there are also phenomena
of a different kind, for example, our thoughts and wishes,
which we cannot measure, weigh, see or hear. They exist in
man's consciousness.
Material objects and phenomena are those which exist not in our consciousness but outside it. They do not depend on human beings, they exist objectively, i.e., in reality. If man
did not exist, these things would still exist. The other group
of phenomena belong to consciousness. They are ideal phenomenon. They include thoughts feelings desires, will.
They do not exist outside and apart from man. As you see,
one group of phenomena in its totality constitutes nature,
matter, while the other constitutes consciousness, or mind.
Nature, matter, is also called being. What connection is
there between material and mental phenomena? This is a
question that faces us continually. In regard to all the
phenomena in the world, we can put it in this way: which
is primary, that is to say, which comes first, nature, matter
or thought, reason, consciousness? Sometimes this question
is put somewhat differently: does mind, consciousness, give
rise to nature, matter, or does nature, matter, being, give
rise to mind, consciousness. This question is known as the
fundamental question of philosophy. Different philosophers
answer it indifferent ways.
Some of them say that matter is primary, initial, that it
gives rise to mind, consciousness. Such philosophers are
called materialists, since their starting point is that matter
denies all that exists. Others say that consciousness, mind,
primary and that matter, nature, is secondary, derivative.
According to them, consciousness precedes matter, and nature
arose from some sort of spiritual basis. Such philosophers are
called idealists; they hold that underlying all that exists is
idea, i.e., thought, spirit. These are the two camps into
which philosophers are divided, that of the materialists and of the idealists. They have opposed each other throughout
history of philosophy.
Hence, depending on how to tackle the fundamental question, the philosophers split into two groups. But the study
and understanding of the world depends also on the method
used by a particular philosopher to gain knowledge.
What is the method
of studying reality?
The method by which the phenomena
of reality are studied plays a very
important part. This is in fact
indicated by the word "method", which is derived from the
Greek "methodos"—a road, direction. If we are on the right
road we can reach our goal. If not, we shall go astray and
not arrive where we should.
Chemistry, physics, astronomy and other sciences have
cir methods of investigation. It is essential to know, however, what should be the proper approach not to the individual phenomena of a particular branch of knowledge,
to nature as a whole, to all phenomena of the world
around us. Here it is a question of world outlook. Imagine
someone saying: "Why look for new crop rotation systems?
Let us do just what our forefathers did." People would
certainly reply that this is a wrong approach, that the soil
and its structure have changed since those days. All sorts of machines for tilling the soil have been devised, so that a
crop rotation system that was introduced, say, in the Middle
Ages cannot satisfy us nowadays. We must, therefore, continually look for new ways of increasing the productivity of
our fields. Underlying every idea of the world is its method,
its approach to the phenomena of nature. The first way of looking at the world is regarded as something immutable, ossified. This is called the "metaphysical method".2 The second method regards objects and phenomenon is developing and changing. This is the dialectical method.3
Which of these two methods is scientific? The metaphysical
method assumes that the sun, mountains, rivers and seas
at the present time are exactly as they were millions of years
ago. It looks on phenomena in isolation, as unconnected
with one another. This is the essence of the metaphysical
method. Materialism in the past, which adhered to this
method, came to be known as "metaphysical materialism".
The development of science in the nineteenth century
increasingly contradicted this idea of the world. The first
breach was due to the cosmological hypothesis of the German
philosopher Kant and the French astronomer Laplace They
showed that the Earth and the solar system resulted from a long process of development of matter. Subsequently,
geology, too, confirmed the idea of the evolution of the Earth.
The view of the world as a connected whole that had arisen
as the result of historical development was particularly
brought into prominence by three great discoveries. The great
English naturalist Charles Darwin showed that the species
of animals and plants existing in the world today had not
always looked as they do now. They came into being as the
result of a long process of evolution. Secondly, scientists
discovered that all animal and plant organisms are made up
of the smallest units—cells—in which the complicated vital
processes take place. In this way the basis was laid for a
correct understanding of the evolution of organisms. Thirdly,
scientists discovered the law of the conservation and transformation of energy. It was established that motion cannot
arise out of nothing, just as it cannot disappear into nothing. The forms of motion pass into one another. Thus it was shown that matter in motion is eternal and indestructible. This was a great triumph for the theory of development.
Thus the development of science provided the prerequisites in the field of natural science that were necessary for the
triumph of the new dialectical materialist view of the world
elaborated by Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Frederick Engels
(1820-1895).
The dialectical view of the world scored a succession of
triumphs. It became increasingly difficult for metaphysics to
deny the principle of development, an outward "recognition"
of which became a characteristic feature of metaphysics in
the nineteenth century. Basically, however, metaphysics
always denies the principle of development, for it understands development as a process of simple repetition, without
the emergence of anything new. It denies the internal source
of development or sees it somewhere outside the developing
things or phenomena—in a god, spirit, or idea. Dialectics and
metaphysics are therefore incompatible.
Dialectics regards development as a process that results
in real changes, where the old dies out and the new comes into being, where the course of events is not cyclical, but
where new qualities of phenomena arise.
Metaphysics regards the world as an accumulation of accidental things and processes. Dialectics, on the other hand,
regards the world as a single connected whole, and it studies
these connections, separating those that are essential from
those that are inessential, those that are fundamental from
those that are accidental.
This will be dealt with in detail in the talks devoted to the
laws and categories of materialist dialectics. You will see
there that phenomena never exist in isolation but are always
interconnected and interacting. The world cannot be understood if, like the metaphysicians, we regard phenomena as
cut off from one another.
From what has been said it follows that dialectics is the
science of the most general laws of motion and development
of nature, human society and thought, the, science of the
universal connection of all phenomena in the world. For this reason it is the opposite of metaphysics.
Why the conflict between
materialism and idealism
is inevitable
The conflict between materialism and
idealism is evident in the approach
to all root problems. What is their
attitude towards religion? Engels
said that the fundamental question of philosophy could be
stated as follows: did God create the world or has it existed
eternally? To this question materialists and idealists give
diametrically opposite answers.
The idealists say that the world came into being when it
was created by the idea, by thought. That the world did not
exist until it was created by God is the view of religion.
Obviously these two views are basically the same. Idealism
has merely substituted the word "idea" for the word "God".
Of course, idealism and religion are not identical; there is a
certain difference between them. What they have in common
is that both of them introduce an ideal, spiritual principle as
the basis of everything that exists. Hence they are closely related. "Idealism is clericalism" Lenin wrote. It arises and
exists as a basis for and justification of religion.
Materialism, on the other hand, teaches that matter, nature,
has existed eternally. It has not had a creator. Such a conception of the world's development has no room for a supreme
heavenly power, for God. There is no need for God; the
development of the world has proceeded without his intervention. Thus materialism involves denial of any God and is
inevitably bound up with atheism. A materialist is necessarily
an atheist. Religious prejudices hinder people from reaching
a correct materialist world outlook.
Materialism and idealism approach all other major problems, too, in opposite ways. We know that a society based on
exploitation consists of hostile classes. What is the attitude
to this, adopted by materialists and idealists? Superficially, it
might seem that idealists write philosophical works that are
remote from "worldly vanity", from the struggle of parties
and classes. But in reality that is far from being the case.
Consider, for example, the modern American philosopher
William Vogt. He says that there are at present hundreds of
millions of "redundant" people in the world. Hence, an atomic
war is required to dispose of them. He lines up with those
who want to unleash a sanguinary war.
Other idealist philosophers call for a crusade against
Communists In this way they help the capitalists to oppose
the progressive forces of society. There are philosophers who
tell the working people not to take part in political activities.
They claim that their theories are non-political, and say: "We
have nothing to do with politics." At first glance, it might
seem that these idealist philosophers stand aside from the
struggle of classes and parties. But it is easy to see that this
is only a cover for their real intentions. In reality, when these
idealists talk of "impartiality" and of being "above parties",
they are in effect saying to the working people: "Keep away
from the struggle against capitalism, against poverty." And
whom does that benefit if not the capitalists and exploiters?
It turns out that idealism supports everything that is reactionary and obsolete, beginning with exploitation and ending with
religion, clericalism.
In contrast to idealism, materialism expresses the interests
of the revolutionary, progressive classes and opposes the
reactionary obsolete classes. If idealism is the banner of the
reactionary classes, materialism is the banner of the progressive, advanced classes. It should be borne in mind, however,
that this proposition must not be oversimplified so as to imply
that under all conditions idealists defend everything reactionary and obsolete, while materialists always express the
interests of the progressive classes. Heraclitus, for instance,
a materialist philosopher of the ancient world, defended the
interests of the slave-owners, opposed Athenian democracy,
and was even in favour of war. On the other hand, the contemporary English philosopher Bertrand Russell, despite
the idealist nature of his philosophy, is an active peace
supporter.
When we say that idealism expresses the interests of the
obsolete, reactionary classes, whereas materialism expresses
those of the progressive classes, we are referring to the basic
historical tendency in the development of philosophy. In this
respect it is actually found that when materialists take reality,
real life, as the basis of their theories, they serve the advanced,
progressive classes. On the other hand, when idealism in its
theories distorts the truth, then, irrespective of the wishes of
individual exponents of idealism, it serves the interests of the
obsolete, reactionary classes. In this sense the conflict between
materialism and idealism is an expression of the class struggle.
In this struggle it is impossible for philosophers to be neutral, to support neither of the contending sides or parties.
Lenin exposed those who asserted: "We are neither materialists nor idealists, we stand 'above' these parties." He called
these philosophers "the despicable party of the middle", and
he refuted their attempts to make out that the conflict between
materialism and idealism was out-of-date and that therefore
philosophers could no longer be divided into materialists and
Idealists. The modern revisionists4 are particularly zealous
supporters of this idea. They furiously attack the Marxist
principle of the partisanship of philosophy, its thesis of an
irreconcilable struggle between materialism and idealism,
asserting that the differences between materialism and idealism are disappearing. The fallacy of such assertions is easily
seen if it is borne in mind that bourgeois society consists of
hostile classes engaged in a bitter struggle against each other.
This struggle cannot cease. Nor can the struggle between
materialism and idealism cease; it is derived from the class
struggle.
Every philosophy, therefore, expresses definite class
interests. How does this apply to Marxism?
What is Marxism and whose interests does it
express?
The most outstanding event of the
period when Marxism arose (in the
forties of the nineteenth century)
was that a new revolutionary class—the proletariat—made its appearance. The birth of the proletariat, of course, goes further back, but by the forties it had
begun to act as a powerful revolutionary force. It was already
loudly demanding its rights, as can be judged from the actions
it undertook at the time. The first such large-scale actions of
the proletariat were: in Britain the Chartist movements,5 and
in France the revolt of the Lyons weavers in the thirties. There
was also a series of actions by the proletariat in Germany.
These actions were evidence of the immense power of the
new rising class, the proletariat. The giant had awakened,
but this was not yet enough for victory. This gigantic force
had to be applied in the right way. The proletariat had to
take the correct path. But what was the correct path?
One path that the proletariat could take was that of minor
tussles with capitalism, unorganised spontaneous action,
without a clear goal and leadership.
What did the proletariat lack that could give its struggle
an organised character and enable it to obtain a clear view
of the prospects ahead? A revolutionary theory-that is what
the proletariat lacked at that time! Let us recall Lenin's words:
"Without a revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement." The proletariat wants to throw off the yoke
of capitalist slavery. It aspires to create a new, socialist
society, free from all exploitation. But the path to the accomplishment of that goal had to be found. Socialist theory had
to be created. Marxism gave this theory to the proletariat and
the working people.
Creating socialist theory as the world outlook of the proletariat meant creating a new theory, an organic unity of
philosophy, political economy and scientific communism.
There were, of course, various philosophical, economic and
socialist theories in existence prior to Marxism. But, firstly,
they never constituted an organic whole and, secondly, they
did not express the interests of the proletariat and could not
serve as a theoretical basis for its struggle for emancipation.
This must not be taken to imply that there were no progressive philosophical and economic systems or socialist
theories before Marxism had appeared. In fact, as Lenin
pointed out, the three component parts of Marxism have three
corresponding sources: German classical philosophy, English
classical political economy and French utopian socialism. The
views of the creators of these theories were not truly scientific. Take, for instance, the theory of the French utopian
socialists. A utopia is an imaginary paradise, an unrealisable
fantasy. Such was the nature of their theory. They tried, for
example, to persuade some factory owners to give their factories to the workers. No good came of this scheme. Their
socialist theory, therefore, remained unrealisable.
A truly scientific theory was created for the proletariat by
its great teachers, Marx and Engels, and is known as Marxism.
Marxism expresses the interests of the proletariat and is the
hitter's theoretical weapon. It is an integral and harmonious
system of philosophical, economic and socio-political views.
Lenin pointed out that Marxism consists of three parts:
philosophy, political economy and scientific communism.
Since we have already made clear the class basis of
Marxism it is easy to realise that its basis can only be
materialist philosophy.
The philosophy of Marxism
is dialectical materialism
You have already seen that the
idealist explanation of the world is
wholly illusory, that it distorts what
takes place in the world. The proletariat cannot have anything
to do with such a philosophy. It wants to build a better life
for all working people. It needs to study the world as it really
is, without fantasies or distortions. Idealism cannot show the
correct way here. But materialism studies the world as it
really is. Marxism, too, proceeds from actual life, without
any spurious addition. Therefore its theoretical foundation
can only be materialist philosophy.
Materialism existed before Marxism appeared. This, however, was metaphysical materialism. Marx and Engels created
a new theory-dialectical materialism Marxism cannot accept
the metaphysical method of approaching the world as something eternal and unchanging. Reality is eternally developing
and changing. In its theories and practical activities Marxism
reflects the changing character of life itself. By its very
nature Marxism is a revolutionary theory. But bourgeois
philosophers today cling to metaphysics, for they want to halt
historical development and perpetuate the capitalist order of
things. This is why it is materialist dialectics, i.e., the science
of development, that is the Marxist method of studying and
transforming reality.
Thus, materialism and dialectics in their unity and inseparable connection constitute the theory and method of Marxism.
That is why the philosophy of Marxism is called dialectical
materialism. It is a philosophical world outlook and at the
same time a method. It serves as a compass and guiding star
in the practical activities of the party of the proletariat.
Why Marxism is the compass and guiding star of
the working people
At one time sailors fixed their
course by the stars. Hence the
expression "guiding star". When the
compass was invented it was used
to show the direction to be taken. Marxist philosophy can be
compared to a compass or a guiding star, for it shows the
proletariat, the Communist Party and all working people the
way to be taken in their practical activities. But a compass
must be a good one or it may lead us astray. It is even more
important to have an accurate compass for a guide in the
affairs of society. The famous Negro singer Paul Robeson
relates that he once belonged to a students' society which had
as its motto: "Philosophy is a guide to life." "But", says
Robeson, "the philosophy taught in the university proved an
unsuitable compass in life… I searched for a way out of this
blind alley but could not find it. Only when I became
acquainted with the teachings of Marx and Lenin did I find
the 'philosophical key' which has really guided my life."
Marxist philosophy can be said to be a compass, a guiding
star, in the sense that in its practical activities the Communist
Party is always guided by its revolutionary theory. For the
Communist Party, Marxist philosophy is, in the full sense of
the word, a guide to action. Here is an example. The first
socialist revolution in history took place in Russia in 1917.
it was at once faced with the important and difficult question
of how to begin the building of socialism. In answering this
question the Party was guided by one of the major points of
Marxist theory, viz., that the decisive factor for a country's
development is its economy. Socialism cannot be built if the
country is inadequately provided with factories and if small-scale peasant farming prevails in the countryside. Guided by
this, the correct way was found. Industrialisation, collectivisation of agriculture and abolition of the exploiting classes—such was the Soviet people's road to socialism. This road of
socialist construction was laid down in the second Programme
adopted by the Eighth Congress of the Communist Party in
1919.
The same thing applies to the present period, that of building communism. To the Soviet people fell the historic role
at being the pioneers of communist construction, of blazing
a new path of social development. Here, too, Marxist theory
is the guide.
The seventeenth century English materialist Francis Bacon
aptly compared correct theory to a lantern that lights up a
dark road for a traveller. He likened a scientist unequipped
with a correct theory to a traveller groping his way in the
dark.
The Communist Party leads the Soviet people to communism
by the sole correct road. The proof of this is seen in the,
historic decisions of the 22nd Congress of the C.P.S.U. To
build communism, the material and technical basis for it has
first to be created. This implies the development of the
country's economy, its industry and agriculture, ensuring the
Soviet people with everything necessary for implementing
the principle of communism: "From each according to his
ability, to each according to his needs." This simple yet
profound thesis underlies all the main sections of the new
Programme adopted by the C.P.S.U. at its 22nd Congress in
1961. It is based wholly and completely on Marxist theory,
which in this case is not so much a lantern as a powerful
searchlight, beacon and compass.
What has been said above unmasks the revisionists who
slanderously assert that Marxism is "out-of-date". Marxism
is the powerful weapon of the Communist Party of the proletariat and all working people in the struggle for communism. Its appearance marked a true revolution in science.
1. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 8, p. 316.
2. Metaphysics—from the Greek "meta ta physika"—after physics.
This was the title Aristotle gave to the section of his work on philosophy devoted to speculative thought, following the section called
"physics". Later the term metaphysics was applied to a method at
cognition opposed to dialectics.
3. Dialectics from the Greek "dialego" to converse, dispute. In antiquity it meant the art of arriving at the truth by discovering contradictions in the arguments of an opponent and overcoming them.
Later it came to he applied to a method of apprehending reality.
4. Revisionism is a distortion of Marxism by revising its principal
tenets so as to comply with the interests of the bourgeoisie.
5. Chartism—British workers' movement of 1836-48 aimed at
securing political rights and improving the economic conditions of the
working class.