Article49

Dialectical Materialism and Logical Empiricism – Similarities

The intellectual landscape of the twentieth century is often painted as a battlefield of irreconcilable camps: the logical positivists of Vienna against the dialectical materialists of Moscow, Carnap against Lenin, Schlick against Engels, Neurath against Marx. The story goes that Logical Empiricism—sterile, clinical, and apolitical—was the sworn enemy of Dialectical Materialism—grand, historical, and revolutionary.
 One side was accused of reducing philosophy to meaningless verification games, the other accused of inflating philosophy into ideological dogma. Yet this picture is too neat, too schematic, and in truth, profoundly misleading. For if one looks closely, Logical Empiricism is not the negation of Dialectical Materialism, but rather one of its instruments, a scalpel in the hands of the broader revolutionary surgeon. The philosophies do not annihilate each other; rather, the first philosophy complements the second, refining its edge, sharpening its weapons, and extending its reach.

Logical Empiricism arose out of the ashes of the First World War, a philosophical project that sought to restore sanity, clarity, and precision to a European intellectual culture drowning in metaphysical fog. The Vienna Circle, with figures like Carnap, Neurath, Schlick, and later A.J. Ayer in Britain, declared war on unverifiable metaphysical speculation. They insisted that meaningful statements must be reducible to logical form and ultimately to empirical verification. Everything else—whether the Hegelian Absolute, the Christian God, or the mystical intuition of Being—was, in their words, “nonsense.” This radical purge of metaphysics was often taken to be a neutral, apolitical project, an attempt merely to clean up the language of science. But even at its most clinical, Logical Empiricism carried a powerful polemical thrust: it undermined the very foundation upon which theological and idealist philosophies rested. In doing so, it created a tool that Dialectical Materialism could readily adopt.

For Marxism, unlike theology or idealism, never rested on unverifiable speculation. It claimed its grounding in empirical history, in the material conditions of human existence, in the observable class struggle written across centuries. Marx mocked Hegelian mystification, Engels scorned metaphysical woolliness, and Lenin insisted that “the theory of knowledge of dialectical materialism is nothing other than the reflection of nature by man.” The Marxist project is at its core materialist and empirical. But it also recognizes something more: that reality is not static but contradictory, not a dead collection of data points but a process of becoming, transformation, and negation of negation. Here, Marxism needs both clarity and dynamism. Logical Empiricism provides the clarity; Dialectical Materialism provides the dynamism. One without the other risks falling into opposite errors: sterile verificationism without history, or grand dialectics without scientific precision.

Consider the enemy they share. Both Logical Empiricism and Dialectical Materialism stand in opposition to metaphysical idealism, theological speculation, and the obfuscating mysticism that passes for philosophy in much of bourgeois culture. When a theologian declares that God is beyond experience yet somehow shapes every event in history, the Logical Empiricist calls this meaningless and the Marxist calls it ideological. The first undermines its logical coherence, the second unmasks its social function. When a reactionary philosopher invokes the eternal “essence of the nation” or the timeless “soul of civilization,” the Logical Empiricist dismisses it as unverifiable metaphysics, while the Marxist reveals it as a weapon of ruling-class power. The two critiques are not opposed; they are complementary. Together, they strip away the veils of ideology with ruthless efficiency.

Nor is it true, as some critics have charged, that Logical Empiricism is inherently conservative or politically neutral. Otto Neurath, one of the central figures of the Vienna Circle, was a committed socialist who explicitly tied the logical empiricist program to Marxism. He argued that the unity of science could serve as the foundation for a rationally planned society, free from the chaos of capitalism. The “protocol sentences” of science, for him, were not abstract exercises but the building blocks of a socialist knowledge order. His advocacy for pictorial statistics (the ISOTYPE system) was itself a democratizing project, intended to bring scientific clarity to the working masses. Logical Empiricism, in his hands, was already a weapon of emancipation. What Marxists have often dismissed as apolitical positivism was, at least in part, forged by a Marxist who saw no contradiction between empiricism and dialectics.

The apparent conflict arises only if one makes the mistake of treating Logical Empiricism as a total philosophy of reality rather than what it truly is: a methodology of science, a discipline of clarity. Marxism does not need to reduce itself to verificationism; rather, it can harness verificationism as a tool. Just as Marxists use mathematics without imagining that mathematics alone explains history, they can use Logical Empiricism’s insistence on clarity without imagining that clarity alone explains motion and contradiction. Marx’s Capital is replete with empirical verification—statistics, factory reports, tables of productivity. He practiced verificationism, though not as an end in itself, but as part of a dialectical analysis of social transformation. Marx was not Carnap, but neither was he Hegel; he was a dialectician who verified.

This is why it is misleading to pit the two as enemies. Dialectical Materialism is the worldview, the ontological and historical framework that explains the motion of nature, society, and thought. Logical Empiricism is the discipline, the methodological conscience that keeps philosophy honest, that ensures our claims remain tethered to observable reality. If Marxism is the revolutionary army, Logical Empiricism is the precision rifle in its arsenal. Without the rifle, the army fights blindly; without the army, the rifle sits idle. Together, they form a force capable of both piercing obfuscation and advancing history.The critics will object: does not Logical Empiricism reject dialectics as meaningless, since contradiction cannot be reduced to simple logical form? Did not Carnap himself attack Marxist dialectics as muddled metaphysics? Yes, Carnap did. But Carnap was wrong not because verificationism disproves dialectics, but because he misunderstood what dialectics claims. Dialectical contradictions are not logical contradictions; they are real, material, historical oppositions. The capitalist mode of production simultaneously generates wealth and poverty, concentration and dispersal, development and ruin. This is not a logical paradox but a material process, empirically observable. Logical Empiricism’s own demand for observation vindicates dialectics, if only it broadens its vision beyond linguistic form. Marxists need not accept Carnap’s narrow reductionism to see the usefulness of his tools. After all, a rifle can be manufactured by reactionaries and still be seized and used by revolutionaries. Philosophy, too, can be expropriated.

The Cold War years reinforced the illusion that Logical Empiricism and Dialectical Materialism were bitter enemies. In the capitalist West, Logical Empiricism was institutionalized in the philosophy of science departments at Harvard, Oxford, and Vienna, while Dialectical Materialism was imposed as the official doctrine of Soviet universities. Western intellectuals, eager to distance themselves from anything that smelled of Marxism, presented Logical Empiricism as the embodiment of liberal, democratic rationality. Soviet ideologues, just as eager to distance themselves from “bourgeois philosophy,” denounced Logical Empiricism as positivist reductionism, incapable of grasping the dialectical laws of nature. On paper, the camps could not have been more hostile. But this mutual caricature obscured the deeper truth: both sides were engaged in the same battle against mystification, and both, in their own way, defended the primacy of science over metaphysics. The divorce was political, not philosophical.

To see this, one need only revisit the writings of Engels and Lenin. Engels, in Dialectics of Nature, railed against the “metaphysicians” who treated things as static and eternal. For him, science proved the dialectical law of constant change and transformation. Lenin, in Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, defended materialism against the subjective idealism of Mach and Avenarius. His polemic was fierce, but his target was not empiricism per se; it was the reduction of the material world to subjective sensations. Lenin insisted that science reflects objective reality, and that this reflection, however mediated, is real knowledge. In other words, Lenin’s quarrel was not with empirical rigor but with the abandonment of materialism. A Lenin who could denounce Mach while defending realism was not far from a Neurath who could defend empiricism while advocating socialism. The battle lines were less fixed than later ideologues imagined.

In fact, one could argue that Logical Empiricism flourished precisely because it unknowingly relied on a dialectical insight: that human knowledge is always in motion, that scientific theories are provisional, and that even the most rigorous verification is embedded in a historical process. Carnap’s insistence on the revisability of language frameworks, or Popper’s later emphasis on falsifiability and the provisional status of scientific theories, are secular echoes of the dialectical truth that knowledge develops through contradiction, correction, and transformation. They lacked the courage to admit that their epistemology was secretly historical, but the logic of science forced them there nonetheless. Dialectical Materialism can absorb these insights without difficulty; it merely locates them within the larger frame of social and historical change.

The idea that Logical Empiricism could be a weapon in Marxism’s arsenal gains further support when one considers the role of ideology critique. Marxism insists that ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class. Logical Empiricism, with its scorn for unverifiable statements, provides a perfect technique for unmasking these ruling ideas. When a capitalist apologist proclaims that the “free market is the natural order of human society,” the Logical Empiricist can ask: what is the empirical content of this claim? Can we verify the existence of such a “natural order”? Finding none, he dismisses it as meaningless. The Marxist goes further: he demonstrates that the claim is not only meaningless but also serves the interests of the bourgeoisie. The combination is devastating. Logical Empiricism clears the logical ground; Marxism explains the historical function. One strikes at the statement’s coherence, the other at its class basis. Together, they annihilate ideological mystification with both precision and depth.

It is telling that the critics who dismiss Logical Empiricism as politically sterile often overlook Neurath’s explicit program. He envisioned a “unified science” that could replace metaphysics and theology with empirically grounded, socially useful knowledge. He tied this directly to socialism, arguing that only in a rationally planned economy could scientific knowledge be used effectively for human emancipation. His pictorial language, ISOTYPE, was designed to democratize knowledge, to allow workers and peasants to understand complex statistics about production, trade, and health. In his vision, science was not a toy for academics but a weapon for the masses. In this, he was closer to Marx than to many of his Vienna Circle colleagues. To dismiss Logical Empiricism as apolitical is to erase Neurath’s Marxist commitments and to forget that clarity itself can be revolutionary when it unmasks ideology.

But there is an even deeper reason why Logical Empiricism complements Dialectical Materialism. Both philosophies share a hatred of dogma. Marx mocked the “wooden heads” of German idealism, who spun systems without evidence. Carnap mocked Heidegger’s talk of Nothingness as pseudo-profound gibberish. Both, in their way, demanded that philosophy justify itself through contact with reality. Neither accepted the authority of tradition or revelation. They differed in emphasis—one stressing history and contradiction, the other stressing language and verification—but their animating spirit was the same: to tear down the false idols of metaphysics and to liberate thought for science. In this sense, Marx and Carnap were intellectual cousins, however much they scowled at one another across political lines.

Of course, one must acknowledge the limits. Logical Empiricism, taken as a complete worldview, is inadequate. It lacks a theory of society, history, and contradiction. Left to itself, it risks degenerating into sterile exercises about the meaning of sentences. Dialectical Materialism, taken without empirical rigor, risks inflating into grand proclamations unmoored from evidence. But the recognition of these limits is precisely what makes their synthesis so powerful. Logical Empiricism disciplines Dialectical Materialism; Dialectical Materialism animates Logical Empiricism. One keeps the other honest; the other keeps the first alive. It is not a marriage of convenience but a dialectical unity of opposites, where each overcomes the weaknesses of the other.

Today, when the world is once again awash in metaphysical obfuscation—whether in the form of postmodern relativism, religious fundamentalism, or technocratic mysticism—the need for this synthesis is urgent. Postmodernism mocks science as just another “discourse.” Religion declares science subordinate to faith. Capitalist technocracy wraps its domination in jargon about markets and innovation. Against all of this, Logical Empiricism can cut through the nonsense with its demand for clarity and verifiability. But clarity alone is not enough. One must also expose the historical and social function of these mystifications, and that requires Dialectical Materialism. To fight the battle of reason in our century, one must wield both weapons together.

The tragedy of the twentieth century is that these weapons were separated, each weakened by the split. Logical Empiricism, detached from dialectics, was tamed into a professional philosophy that debated language games while the world burned. Dialectical Materialism, detached from empiricism, hardened into dogma in the Soviet bloc, often stifling the very science it claimed to champion. Each became a caricature of itself, and the enemies of reason—reaction, mysticism, authoritarianism—were the beneficiaries. The task of our time is to reunite what politics tore apart: the sharp knife of Logical Empiricism with the broad vision of Dialectical Materialism.

The twenty-first century has brought a paradox. On one hand, science has never been more powerful. We map the human genome, detect gravitational waves, manipulate quantum states, and deploy artificial intelligence across industry and daily life. On the other hand, public discourse has never been more polluted by superstition, conspiracy, and mystification. Astrological apps compete with physics journals; prophets of prosperity preach louder than economists; postmodern academics insist that truth is nothing but a construct of power. We live in a moment where science advances with breathtaking speed, yet belief retreats into pre-rational comfort. In such a moment, the marriage of Logical Empiricism and Dialectical Materialism is not a luxury but a necessity. Without it, reason risks collapse before the twin forces of reaction and relativism.

Consider first the force of reaction. Religious fundamentalism—Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Jewish—thrives precisely because it rejects empirical evidence and cloaks itself in metaphysical certainties. To such movements, Logical Empiricism offers a devastating critique. Its principle of verification slices away every unverifiable claim: the doctrine of transubstantiation, the claim of virgin birth, the revelation of prophecy, the eternal soul. None of these withstands the demand for empirical grounding. But Logical Empiricism alone cannot explain why these dogmas persist, why they serve as rallying cries for millions. Dialectical Materialism steps in here. It reveals that these religious forms are not timeless truths but ideological reflections of material conditions—compensations for alienation, tools of social control, expressions of class struggle. Together, the two philosophies dismantle both the content and the function of reactionary ideology. The empiricist shows its incoherence; the materialist shows its purpose.

Now consider the force of relativism. Postmodernism, in its academic guise, has declared war on the very idea of truth. Science, it claims, is merely one narrative among many, no more valid than myth or poetry. All knowledge is said to be a “discourse of power,” relative to culture and perspective. Logical Empiricism here plays a crucial role: it insists that there is a difference between meaningful and meaningless statements, between empirically testable claims and empty verbiage. It refuses to let “discourses” replace evidence. Yet Dialectical Materialism ensures that we do not fall into naïve scientism. It acknowledges that science itself is historical, that knowledge grows through contradictions, that power and class shape the direction of inquiry. But instead of collapsing into relativism, it insists that science is nonetheless a reflection of objective reality. Truth is not absolute but approximate, provisional, historical—and still truth. Here again, the complementarity is evident: Logical Empiricism defends the line of demarcation between sense and nonsense, while Dialectical Materialism explains how truth develops through history. Each saves the other from caricature.

The critics of this synthesis may argue that such a union is unnatural. Did not the Vienna Circle dismiss dialectics as empty rhetoric? Did not Soviet philosophers denounce Logical Empiricism as bourgeois reductionism? Yes, they did. But politics, not philosophy, drove this hostility. In the West, positivism was co-opted into a weapon against Marxism; in the East, dialectics was ossified into a catechism against “bourgeois science.” Both sides distorted the original impulse. Neurath’s Marxist empiricism was silenced in Vienna; Lenin’s subtle defense of realism was turned into dogma in Moscow. What was once a potential alliance became a Cold War casualty. To reclaim this synthesis today is to refuse the inherited divisions of that war, to insist that philosophy belongs to truth, not to propaganda.

Indeed, one might say that Logical Empiricism is the “microscope” and Dialectical Materialism the “theory of evolution.” The microscope provides clarity and precision, allowing us to examine details with accuracy. But without a theory of evolution, the microscope remains a collection of disconnected observations. Evolution gives those observations meaning, places them in a historical narrative, shows how they connect. In the same way, Logical Empiricism gives precision to our claims, while Dialectical Materialism places them in the context of motion, contradiction, and history. Only together do they form a philosophy of science adequate to our age.

The practical implications are profound. In politics, the synthesis equips us to challenge both neoliberal technocracy and populist mysticism. Against technocrats who wrap exploitation in pseudo-scientific jargon—“the invisible hand of the market,” “trickle-down economics”—Logical Empiricism demands empirical evidence, while Dialectical Materialism unmasks the class interests served by such doctrines. Against populists who rally masses around conspiracies and religious symbols, Logical Empiricism strips their claims of meaning, while Dialectical Materialism reveals their social roots in alienation and dispossession. The battle of ideas cannot be won with empiricism or dialectics alone; it requires both, wielded in unison.

In culture, the synthesis enables us to defend science without succumbing to scientism. We can affirm climate science against denialists, vaccines against anti-vaxxers, and evolution against creationists—armed with the empiricist’s demand for verification. Yet we can also explain why denialism persists: because fossil capital resists regulation, because alienated individuals mistrust institutions, because ideology is rooted in class struggle. We can defend science as real while recognizing its social embeddedness. This is the only way to preserve truth in an age where both absolutism and relativism threaten it.

Philosophically, the synthesis resolves a century-old impasse. Logical Empiricism’s greatest weakness was its inability to account for history and contradiction. Dialectical Materialism’s greatest weakness was its tendency, in practice, to drift into dogma and lose empirical sharpness. Each without the other failed. Together, they offer what neither alone could: a philosophy of science that is both rigorous and historical, both precise and dynamic, both skeptical of metaphysics and confident in truth. In the language of dialectics, one might say that their apparent opposition is itself a contradiction to be overcome, a unity of opposites that produces a higher truth.

And so the task before us is clear. We must reclaim Logical Empiricism as part of the Marxist arsenal, not as an enemy but as a weapon. We must reject the Cold War caricature that separated them, and insist that clarity and history, verification and contradiction, belong together. We must train ourselves in the empiricist’s scalpel and the dialectician’s lens, wielding both against the enemies of reason. For in a world where irrationalism marches under many banners—religious, nationalist, postmodern, capitalist—the defense of reason requires every weapon we can muster.

It is fashionable today to proclaim the “end of grand narratives,” to dismiss both Marxism and Logical Empiricism as relics of the twentieth century. But this is premature. The crises of our time—climate catastrophe, technological upheaval, resurgent fascism—demand more reason, not less; more science, not less; more critique, not less. Logical Empiricism alone cannot give us history. Dialectical Materialism alone cannot give us precision. But together, they can give us a philosophy adequate to the age. To abandon either is to fight blind. To unite them is to arm ourselves for the struggle of truth against mystification, of reason against unreason, of humanity against barbarism.

The synthesis, then, is not merely an intellectual curiosity. It is a weapon of survival.