opposites propelled civilization forward and that by
understanding current “contradictions,” we could see
what was “becoming.” This then becomes a kind of
philosophical fortune telling or prophesy.
Karl MARXadapted this Hegelian dialectic to eco-
nomic classes (master/slave; landlord/peasant; capital-
ist/worker) and claimed that social and political
history is propelled by this conflict of economic classes
that represent forces and relations of production. For
Marxism, this “dialectical materialism” led history
through various stages from FEUDALISMto CAPITALISMto
SOCIALISM to communism. The process was an
inevitable evolution, so the idea was to attach oneself
to the “progressive” social class (in capitalism the pro-
letariat or industrial workers). Finally, history would
end in communism, a classless society of economic
abundance and political liberation.
Fascist political theory (as in Benito Mussolini in
Italy and Adolf HITLER in Germany in the 1930s)
adopted the Hegelian dialectic in a different way. For
fascist philosopher Giovanni GENTILE, each individual
has the opposites of a “particular will” and a “universal
will” within them. The particular will is one’s personal
interests, desires, and talents; the universal will is one’s
culture, race, nationality, heritage, and language within
one. Growing in “self-consciousness” is coming to
know that universal (Germaness, Italianness) will that
is embodied in the STATE (and the powerful state
leader). So, Fascist countries subordinated individual
citizens to the will of the state, claiming that dialecti-
cally this was fulfilling or “realizing” the individual.
Dialectical fascist theory also justified aggressive war-
fare on the grounds that the dominating nations (such
as NAZIGermany) dialectically “overcame” the “opposi-
tion” of the dominated nations (such as Poland). This
rationalized brutal dictatorship and military aggression.
Fascist countries claimed that they were only asserting
their “RIGHTS” and that other (conquered) countries
were in their way. The dialectic became more diabolical
as the communist and fascist systems used it to justify
all kinds of cruel and inhuman policies (such as
attempted extermination of the Jews, oppression of for-
eign peoples, forced labor camps, etc.)
In later praxis-school Marxism (see CRITICAL
THEORY), the dialectic was used to explain all social
causes in terms of the “ideal” criticizing the “real” and
leading to progressive human liberation and “self-real-
ization.” Seeing all social relations (as between classes,
races, genders) in terms of conflict, the praxis Marxist
“overcomes” oppression between men and women,
blacks and whites, rich and poor, through revolution-
ary criticism of any group or individual who has
power and “transforming” the dialectical conflict into
“unity.” This New LEFT perspective informs much of
sociology and neo-Marxist political philosophy.
In a different, purely logical Western perspective,
the dialectic can also mean the use of opposing argu-
ments in discussion (such as the Greek philosopher
SOCRATESarriving at truth through a method of asking
questions and revealing the internal contradictions
in an opponent’s opinions). The adversarial legal sys-
tem in Anglo-American jurisprudence and clashing
“free-marketplace-of-ideas” liberalism of John Stuart
MILL are dialectical in this sense (as is free-market
competition).Further Reading
Jordan, Z. A. The Evolution of Dialectical Materialism.New York:
St. Martin’s Press, 1967.dictator/dictatorship
A government or state ruled by one person with
absolute AUTHORITY(dictator). That is a single ruler
who can dictate: all laws, policies, and personnel in
the state. Dictatorshipanother term for DESPOTISMor
TYRANNY.The word dictatorusually carries the nega-
tive meaning of a “brutal dictator” who governs by
whim, cruelty, and violence. In the 20th century, the
COMMUNIST leaders Castro (in Cuba) and STALIN
(Soviet Union) were often described as dictators
because they ruled with absolute power. NAZIleader
Adolf HITLER established a personal dictatorship in
Germany in the 1930s. Often, African and Middle
Eastern countries have dictatorships after the military
takes over the government. The dictator is not limit-
ed in power by laws, other rulers or independent
groups, CIVIL SOCIETY, or political institutions. Karl
MARX applied this concept to the “dictatorship of
the proletariat”—the working-class dictatorship set
up after a proletarian or communist revolution to cre-
ate a socialist economy and state. In this Marxist
sense, dictatorship is not necessarily evil because he
claimed that all governments were class dictatorships
of some sort.Further Reading
Ehrenberg, John. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat: Marxism’s
Theory of Socialist Democracy. New York: Routledge,
1992.dictator/dictatorship 85