Maq Masi Blog

Throughout history, thinkers have tried to explain how the world changes and how societies progress. Karl Marx once remarked, “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.” This statement marked a turning point, shifting focus from merely understanding the world to actively transforming it.

Marx and Engels developed dialectical materialism as a framework for interpreting human history through a materialist lens, in contrast to Hegel’s dialectical idealism, which gave primacy to ideas. Marx argued that change must be understood in relation to the material conditions of life — production, technology, and social relations — rather than abstract concepts.

From this foundation, Engels outlined three laws of dialectics: the unity and conflict of opposites, the passage of quantitative changes into qualitative changes, and the negation of the negation. Lenin and later revolutionaries such as Stalin and Mao took these principles further, politicising them into doctrines of class struggle. In their hands, dialectical materialism became not only a philosophical method but also a revolutionary strategy.

Yet, history suggests another reading. Human progress has often unfolded gradually, much like Darwin’s theory of evolution, with transformation occurring through adaptation and survival rather than through sudden upheaval alone. Revolutionary leaps have certainly occurred, but they often built upon long periods of incremental development. In this light, one may argue that Marx and Engels inverted Darwin’s insights, framing progress as primarily revolutionary, whereas in reality it may be more evolutionary in nature — with revolution as a phase rather than the essence of change.

Moreover, Lenin to Mao can be seen as having forced the pace of history, collapsing the time of evolution into premature revolutions. By doing so, they risked destabilising the process of adaptation and overlooked the role of gradual growth. Instead of allowing the unity of opposites to mature into transformation, they absolutised conflict, turning class struggle into the singular driver of change.

If criticism is to hold meaning, however, it must also propose alternatives. Here emerges the idea of Adaptive Dialectical Praxis (ADP): a framework that integrates both evolutionary adaptation and revolutionary transformation. ADP insists on concrete analysis of problems, adaptive transformation when conditions demand it, safeguards against regression, and a human-centred goal of dignity, wellbeing, and collective responsibility. It envisions progress not as chaos or stagnation but as a balanced, scientific, and participatory process.

This reflection leads to deeper questions: What is the end goal of human progress? How do we ensure that the advances we achieve are not reversed into exploitation or oppression? And what mechanisms can safeguard humanity’s collective future? These questions must accompany any philosophy or system we propose — for without them, even the most brilliant theories risk repeating the failures of the past.

For those who wish to read the full detailed article, including extended discussion and the complete framework of Adaptive Dialectical Praxis (ADP), it is available here: 👉 https://wp.me/p31jLP-6i

---