Thumbnail is Marx's manuscript for The German Ideology. Summary below is a compilation of my notes I wrote when reading Materialism and the Dialectical Method by Maurice Cornforth, along with general knowledge from reading various Marxist authors.
Often times, Marxists use the term "material conditions," and "dialectics." What does this mean? Why do Marxists care so much about material conditions? The answer is that Marxists seek materialist explanations for observed processes as opposed to idealist, and do so dialectically, as opposed to metaphysically. In other words, Marxists apply dialectical analysis to find materialist explanations for phenomena. Dialectical materialism is the world outlook of the proletariat as a class, and serves as the most vital ideological tool for overthrowing capitalism.
In order to understand dialectical materialism, we need to understand its component parts, materialism and dialectics, and their historical predecessors, idealism and metaphysics.
Idealism

Idealism is, in short, to put ideas prior to matter. Idealism has been used by feudal lords to justify their position above the serfs, forming the ideological basis for feudalism. The 3 major assertions of idealism are as follows:
-
Idealism asserts that the material world is dependent on the spiritual
-
Idealism asserts that spirit, or mind, or idea, can and does exist in separation from matter. (The most extreme form of this assertion is subjective idealism, which asserts that matter does not exist at all but is pure illusion.)
-
Idealism asserts that there exists a realm of the mysterious and unknowable, "above," or "beyond," or "behind" what can be ascertained and known by perception, experience, and science.
Early Materialism

Common idealist arguments are appealing to a supernatural "human nature," or "good vs. evil" explanations for processes. Materialism arose over time, as people grew to understand the world more deeply, and especially as a tool to overthrow the feudal aristocracy that justified its existence via the church. In other words, materialism rose to help the bourgeoisie. The 3 basic teachings of materialism as counterposed to idealism are:
-
Materialism teaches that the world is by its very nature material, that everything which exists comes into being on the basis of material causes, arises and develops in accordance with the laws of motion of matter.
-
Materialism teaches that matter is objective reality existing outside and independent of the mind; and that far from the mental existing in separation from the material, everything mental or spiritual is a product of material processes.
-
Materialism teaches that the world and its laws are fully knowable, and that while much may not be known there is nothing which is by nature unknowable.
Shortcomings of Metaphysical Materialism

The type of materialism that overthrew the feudal lords was still underdeveloped, and metaphysical. The bourgeoisie needed an explanation for why the feudal lords were illegitimate, but still needed to support their own static, permanent rule. This was called mechanistic materialism, for the bourgeois scientists saw the world as a grand machine repeating simple motions forever. Mechanistic materialism, therefore, makes certain dogmatic assumptions:
-
That the world consists of permanent and stable things or particles, with definite, fixed properties;
-
That the particles of matter are by nature inert and no change ever happens except by the action of some external cause;
-
That all motion, all change can be reduced to the mechanical interaction of the separate particles of matter;
-
That each particle has its own fixed nature independent of everything else, and that the relationships between separate things are merely external relationships.
Moving from Metaphysics to Dialectics

This, of course, has proven false. History did not end with the dissolution of the USSR, despite what modern mechanistic materialists claim. Mechanistic materialism relies on metaphysics, seeing everything as a static abstraction, devoid of its context. It has no explanation for how new qualities emerge, and ultimately fell to idealism to explain the "first mover," ie "God." Dialectical materialism holds instead:
-
The world is not a complex of things but of processes;
-
That matter is inseperable from motion;
-
That the motion of matter comprehends an infinite diversity of forms which arise one from another and pass into one another;
-
That things exist not as separate individual units but in essential relation and interconnection.
Dialectical Materialism

This became remarkable for the proletariat, as it sees nothing as static, and therefore marks the eventual downfall of the bourgeoisie. Putting it all together, we get the following:
- Dialectical materialism understands the world, not as a complex of ready-made things, but as a complex of processes, in which all things go through an uninterrupted change of coming into being and passing away.
In other words, when analyzing events and contextualizing them, we must always viee them as a struggle between the rising and the falling, the old and the new, for example the concentration of capital in markets and the rise in socialize labor.

- Dialectical materialism considers that matter is always in motion, that motion is the mode of existence of matter, so that there can no more be matter without motion than motion without matter. Motion does not have to be impressed upon matter by some outside force, but above all it is necessary to look for the inner impulses of development, the self-motion, inherent in all processes.
In other words, all movement is a result of contradiction. Your foot presses on the Earth, and the Earth presses back on you.

- Dialectical materialism understands the motion of matter as comprehending all changes and processes in the universe, from mere changes of place right to thinking. It recognizes, therefore, the infinite diversity of the forms of motion of matter from the simple to the complex, from the lower to the higher.
In other words, dialectical materialism recognizes that development exists as a change of quantity into quality. Addition or subtraction gives way to qualitative change. A balloon is filled with air, until at a given point it pops due to pressure buildup. Water goes from liquid to gas at its boiling point, and back into liquid when cooling down to said point.

- Dialectical materialism considers that, in the manifold processes taking place in the universe, things come into being, change and pass out of being, not as separate individual units, but in essential relation and interconnection, so that they cannot be understood each separately and by itself but only in their relation and interconnection.
In other words, everything is connected, and must be analyzed in context to truly understand it. A worker isn't just an individual, but instead part of a social class of many workers. Wages are not something invented brand new every time, but instead are set by societal standards, controlled by the ruling capitalist class.

Conclusion
Karl Marx created dialectical materialism by turning Hegel's idealist dialectic into a materialist one. Then, he applied it to the progression of society, creating historical materialism. By analyzing social structures and progress as a dialectical process based in materialism, we can learn from history and analyze where it's going. This is scientific socialism in progress. Human thought is shaped by our social experience, forming class consciousness and ideology. How we produce and distribute determines our ways of thinking.
Socialism and communism also have their own contradictions as well, and just because we progress on to socialism does not mean we cannot fall back to capitalism. The dialectical materialist world outlook understands that nothing is static, and there is always new contradiction and new movement from that.
If you keep these in mind, you can do your own dialectical materialist analysis. Always seek explanations based on the material, not the ideal, and always do so by contextualizing the processes, analyzing their contradictions, the unity and struggle of opposing tendencies. Quantitative changes lead to qualitative development, and progresses as a result of the conflict or struggle of opposite tendencies. There's much more to dialectical materialism, but this should help serve as a simple overview!
Responding to @Ourst@lemmy.sdf.org here for this comment, since @Pandantic@midwest.social tagged me on a comm I can't actually post or comment in for "voting while tankie." This was for the following meme:
And subsequent comment:
There are a few key lies here.
I don't quote "random bits of theory" much at all. I did do that years ago, but learned that that's extremely ineffective. Instead, I explain my points in my own words, and use facts, statistics, and primary sources for talking about contemporary politics. Discussion of theory is largely useless with those that have no interest in learning, which was a major mistake I used to make while talking about socialism and communism online.
"Dengism" does not exist as an ideology. Deng Xiaoping Theory exists, and largely refers to Reform and Opening Up. When Ourst alleges that it is "state capitalism," we have to investigate what changed between the Mao era and the Deng era, and the PRC today.
Contrary to common belief, the economy wasn't 100% publicly owned and planned under Mao or the Gang of Four. Private and cooperative ownership existed, and did so not because of a belief that private ownership is better than public in the abstract, but because of the level of development in the productive forces of China. What Deng Xiaoping did was largely carry over plans from Zhou Enlai and Mao Zedong in opening up secondary, non-critical industries to foreign investment, with dominant state ownership.
What is "state capitalism?" It best describes an economy that is both capitalist and heavily state run and controlled. What is capitalism, then? Capitalism is a mode of production where private ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, ie governing the large firms and key industries at a minimum. The Republic of Korea, dominated by megacorporations like Samsung while employing strong state controls, is an excellent example of such a system.
Why is it important to judge what is principle in determining the mode of production? Because no economy on the planet is "pure." Whoever controls the large firms and key industries indirectly controls the small/medium firms and secondary industries. As an example, the rubber factory has control over the rubber ball factory.
In the PRC, the large firms and key industries are all dominated by state ownership. This is qualitatively different from capitalism, and as such this gets fundamentally different results. If we use the lessons on dialectical materialism learned in the topic post, we can see that public, socialized ownership is the rising factor in the PRC, as the privatized sector grows it socializes itself and prepares for easier integration into the public sector. This is a "birdcage" economy, capital is let free within specified confines.
Why allow private ownership at all? To fill in the gaps left by the public sector, to help with technology transfer from the west, to stave off war by integrating heavily into the global economy, and to accelerate the growth and development of small and medium firms. Is it necessary to do so? No, but for the strategy chosen by the PRC it is undeniably working out for them, as the PRC continues to grow and rise.
In other words, "billionaires vs. no billionaires" isn't a binary choice. It's a tradeoff, with either path offering their own strengths and weaknesses. The soviet union took the "no billionaires" path and was isolated by the west, weakening it's global integration. The DPRK and Cuba took the "no billionaires" path, and while they have been doing very well despite their circumstances, they havw been some of the most isolated countries on the planet as a consequence. The PRC's decision to integrate with the global economy came with new contradictions, but also new opportunities, and by retaining public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy has done so without undermining socialism, but building on top of it.
It must be extremely convenient to claim everything I say is simply propaganda. However, there's absolutely no investigation in the quality of the sources I use, just a blanket statement. If Ourst has an example of this, I'd be more than happy to discuss it.
Overall, I'm confused by the point Ourst is making here, because they aren't engaging with real points I make. I suggest they speak to me directly, rather than hiding in a comm I'm banned from.
Addendum, for fun. After responding to the allegations from @Ourst@lemmy.sdf.org, let's see what kinds of things they post.
Both are against the DPRK, which is obvious. The former is just the assertion that the DPRK isn't democratic, believing it humorous that it calls itself as such. The latter hits on similar beats, with the addition of depicting Kim Jong-Un, a Korean man, as a yellow creature. Ourst also depicts Xi Jinping as a yellow cartoon bear, and has several memes hinting that they've been accused of racism by Marxist-Leninists. Shocking!
Returning to the topic of the DPRK and whether or not it's democratic, I'll pull from professor Roland Boer's book Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance:
I highly recommend the book, it helps shed light on some often misunderstood mechanisms in socialist democracy, including the directly addressed fact that the DPRK's voting process includes single candidate approval voting. Without the context of the candidate selection process, this is spun as entirely anti-democratic.
The DPRK doesn't have a liberal democracy. They do have a comprehensive candidate election system, direct voting at all levels of government, 3 political parties, and a system of approval voting. They do not align with what the west thinks democracy looks like, but instead this form of democracy evolved out of Korea's struggles against Japanese colonialism and the structures set up during that time period.
Ourst has nothing actually backing their claims of the DPRK being undemocratic, and additionally seems to think it's okay to depict both Xi Jinping and Kim Jong-Un as yellow caricatures. Even if one could claim a single time is a coincidence, the fact that it's consistent across Ourst's depictions of asians, and their defensive stance surrounding allegations of Ourst's racism, this appears to be a pattern.