this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2026
22 points (95.8% liked)

Ask Lemmygrad

1350 readers
80 users here now

A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Shaggy0291@lemmygrad.ml
GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml
SovereignState@lemmygrad.ml
QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml
yogthos@lemmygrad.ml
22
Dialectical Materialism vs Mechanical Materialism? (lemmygrad.ml)
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by RedZodan@lemmygrad.ml to c/asklemmygrad@lemmygrad.ml
18 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I've been struggling for a while to reconcile my faith (Islam) with communism. I've run into a lot of leftists who tell me flat out that you can't be religious and a Marxist. They quote Lenin, Bukharin, and the ABC of Communism to argue that religion is 'idealist' and that any believing communist is a 'revisionist.'

But recently, someone on this platform responded to one of my posts with something that really stuck with me. They suggested that the leftists I've been arguing with might be confusing mechanical materialism with dialectical materialism. They put it this way:

'A dialectical materialist view would say that somebody receiving a message from a god is part of their material conditions... either way, it's still a real thing impacting them.'

They argued that a mechanical materialist treats humans like passive objects, reduces consciousness to brain chemistry, and sees religion as just 'false consciousness' to be eliminated. A dialectical materialist, by contrast, understands that consciousness is real, that ideas emerge from material conditions and then react back on them, and that religion is a complex phenomenon that can be a force for resistance or oppression depending on the context.

This really resonated with me, but I want to understand it more deeply.

So I want to ask you all:

  1. In your own words, what is the difference between mechanical and dialectical materialism?

  2. How does dialectical materialism approach the question of religion, compared to mechanical materialism?

  3. Does dialectical materialism require atheism as a philosophical commitment, or is it compatible with someone who holds religious faith as a personal and communal practice so as long as they don't use their faith as their analytical tool or basis for an argument?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sleeplessone@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 weeks ago

I'm too mentally spent to address the main topic of your post (maybe I'll put in more effort later). Regarding religion, I believe you'll find what Marx said here helpful:

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.^[Critique of Hegel's Philosopy of Right]