*Class Struggle in the Light of Historical Materialism and Quantum Dialectics

In the framework of quantum dialectics, class struggle is not a fixed or linear process but a dynamic and probabilistic phenomenon, shaped by the continuous interplay between cohesive and decohesive forces that influence the trajectory of historical development. While Marxist theory correctly identifies the fundamental contradiction between the bourgeoisie and proletariat as the engine of social transformation, quantum dialectics refines this understanding by recognizing that these contradictions exist in a state of flux, where multiple historical possibilities coexist until material conditions force a decisive transition. The capitalist system maintains its coherence through inward cohesive forces—legal institutions, ideological apparatuses, and state repression—that work to stabilize class relations and suppress revolutionary tendencies. These forces ensure that even as inequality and exploitation deepen, the working class remains integrated within the system, whether through reformist concessions, cultural hegemony, or coercive mechanisms. However, capitalism is inherently unstable; outward decohesive forces—economic crises, class consciousness, labor movements, and revolutionary struggles—periodically disrupt this equilibrium, exposing the contradictions of the system and pushing it toward instability. These contradictions do not develop in a straight line but instead build up non-linearly, creating critical points of rupture where society enters a state of dynamic equilibrium—a moment of historical superposition where multiple futures (revolutionary transformation, fascist reaction, or capitalist restructuring) become possible. This perspective allows us to see class struggle as not merely an inevitable, mechanical process but as a contingent and strategic battle, where the intervention of revolutionary forces determines the collapse of capitalist equilibrium and the emergence of a new socio-economic order. The Russian Revolution, for example, was not a guaranteed outcome of capitalism’s contradictions but a historically contingent event, where Leninist strategy, proletarian organization, and state collapse aligned at a moment of decoherence to bring about socialist transformation. Thus, class struggle is both the driver of historical change and a reflection of capitalism’s internal contradictions, oscillating between stability and crisis. By applying quantum dialectics, revolutionaries can move beyond static or deterministic interpretations of history and instead develop scientifically grounded, adaptive strategies that anticipate moments of systemic instability and intervene to ensure that the collapse of capitalism leads to socialist reconstruction rather than reactionary stabilization.

In this article, we will examine the dynamics of class struggle through the lens of both historical materialism and Quantum Dialectics, offering a deeper understanding of the forces that shape societal evolution. By incorporating concepts like inward cohesive force, outward decohesive force, and dynamic equilibrium from Quantum Dialectic Philosophy, we can explore the interplay between stability and change in the context of social transformation.

In the framework of quantum dialectics, historical materialism is not a rigidly deterministic process but a dynamic, probabilistic unfolding of social transformation, where the contradictions between the economic base and the ideological superstructure exist in a state of continuous flux. While traditional historical materialism correctly asserts that the material conditions of production shape social institutions, laws, and cultural norms, quantum dialectics refines this understanding by emphasizing that these structures do not change in a strictly linear or predetermined manner. Instead, they exist in a superpositional state, where multiple potential historical trajectories coexist until material contradictions force a decisive shift. The ruling class, much like a quantum system maintaining coherence, relies on cohesive forces—ideological hegemony, political institutions, and repressive state mechanisms—to stabilize the existing order and prevent the spontaneous realization of alternative social structures. However, economic crises, technological revolutions, and shifts in production relations introduce decohesive forces that disrupt this stability, creating moments of systemic instability where revolutionary possibilities emerge. These moments, akin to quantum wavefunction collapses, determine the future course of history—not through inevitability but through dialectical intervention. The class struggle, therefore, is not merely an automatic response to exploitation but a dynamic, interactive process where revolutionary movements must actively engage with emergent contradictions, seizing opportunities when the material and ideological conditions align for transformation. Unlike mechanical interpretations of Marxism, which assume a predetermined path to socialism, quantum dialectics underscores the importance of strategic flexibility—revolutionary forces must analyze historical probabilities, identify key points of decoherence, and intervene decisively to shape the trajectory of change. This means that while the contradictions between labor and capital drive history, their resolution is not automatic; it depends on the ability of the proletariat and its revolutionary leadership to harness material and ideological shifts toward the construction of a socialist order. Thus, historical materialism, when integrated with quantum dialectics, becomes a tool for both analyzing and actively participating in historical transformation, ensuring that revolutionaries do not passively await change but scientifically and strategically engineer its conditions.

In the framework of quantum dialectics, the exploitation inherent in the capitalist mode of production is not a static condition but a dynamic contradiction that exists in a state of constant flux, shaped by the interaction of cohesive and decohesive forces within the economic system. The bourgeoisie maintains its dominance through cohesive mechanisms such as wage suppression, state repression, ideological control, and the illusion of social mobility, all of which work to stabilize the capitalist order and delay revolutionary rupture. However, these stabilizing forces are counteracted by systemic decohesive pressures—deepening economic crises, technological disruptions that alter labor relations, growing inequality, and the proletariat’s increasing awareness of its exploitation. The extraction of surplus value, which is the foundation of capitalist profit, is itself an unsustainable process that intensifies contradictions over time. As capital accumulates, wages are driven down, markets become oversaturated, and economic stagnation sets in, leading to crises that the capitalist system struggles to contain. Unlike mechanical interpretations of Marxism that assume a linear build-up of contradictions leading inevitably to revolution, quantum dialectics views these moments of crisis as probabilistic ruptures, where multiple potential outcomes exist simultaneously, shaped by the intervention of class forces. The resolution of these contradictions does not occur automatically but depends on whether revolutionary forces can effectively harness the conditions of systemic decoherence to push society toward socialism. If the proletariat fails to organize and assert its class interests, capitalism may temporarily restore its coherence through reforms, repression, or the absorption of dissent into new ideological frameworks. However, if class-conscious revolutionary movements intervene at the right moment—amplifying decohesion and strategically disrupting capitalist stability—the contradictions within the system can collapse into a qualitatively new socialist order. Thus, historical development, from the perspective of quantum dialectics, is not a rigid sequence of inevitable transformations but a field of probabilistic possibilities, where revolutionary change emerges from the dialectical interplay of crisis, class struggle, and strategic intervention.

Quantum Dialectics provides a sophisticated and dynamic framework for analyzing social change, integrating the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics with the materialist analysis of dialectical contradictions. Unlike rigid, deterministic models that view social transformation as a linear progression, Quantum Dialectics emphasizes the continuous interplay of cohesive and decohesive forces that shape the trajectory of historical development. In this perspective, class struggle is not a static or mechanical conflict but a fluid, evolving process where forces of cohesion—such as class solidarity, ideological hegemony, and institutional stability—compete with forces of decohesion—such as economic crises, mass uprisings, and ideological fractures—to determine the future of society. Cohesive forces act as stabilizers, maintaining the structural integrity of a given socio-economic system by reinforcing dominant narratives, sustaining the capitalist order through state mechanisms, and managing contradictions to prevent systemic collapse. However, decohesive forces emerge from within the system itself, disrupting stability by exposing its contradictions—whether through exploitation, inequality, or crisis—creating conditions for revolutionary transformation. In quantum mechanics, a system exists in a superpositional state until an external force collapses it into a definitive outcome; similarly, in social processes, multiple potential futures coexist until a decisive intervention—often led by class struggle—determines which path the system takes. The revolutionary movement, therefore, must not only recognize the presence of contradictions but also strategically amplify decohesive forces at the right moments to accelerate systemic breakdown while ensuring that a new, coherent socialist order emerges rather than chaotic collapse. This requires an adaptive and scientific approach to social struggle, where revolutionaries constantly assess shifting conditions, anticipate emergent contradictions, and intervene with precision. Quantum Dialectics, therefore, refines dialectical materialism by introducing an understanding of probabilistic change, emergent properties, and the non-linearity of revolutionary processes, ensuring that the strategy for socialist transformation remains flexible, scientifically grounded, and responsive to the ever-changing dynamics of class struggle.

In the framework of quantum dialectics, class struggle can be understood as the continuous interplay between inward cohesive forces and outward decohesive forces, shaping the stability and transformation of social structures. Inward cohesive forces function as the stabilizing mechanisms that maintain systemic coherence, preventing the contradictions of capitalism from escalating into revolutionary rupture. These forces manifest through legal systems that protect private property and the rights of the bourgeoisie, ensuring that economic exploitation remains institutionalized and legally sanctioned. Similarly, dominant cultural narratives reinforce the legitimacy of inequality by presenting social hierarchies as natural, inevitable, or even beneficial to society as a whole, embedding capitalist ideology within mass consciousness. The military, police, and judicial system serve as direct instruments of coercion, designed to suppress dissent and neutralize threats to capitalist stability through legal and extralegal means. These cohesive forces operate much like quantum coherence, sustaining the capitalist system by reinforcing ideological and structural unity, preventing systemic decoherence that could lead to collapse. However, capitalism is not a static system—it is riddled with contradictions that produce outward decohesive forces, which push against the established order, seeking transformation rather than preservation. These forces emerge from within the system itself as a result of its internal contradictions—exploitation, inequality, crises of overproduction, and the alienation of labor. Labor movements, strikes, and mass protests disrupt economic stability, introducing moments of political decoherence where class consciousness emerges, challenging the ideological hegemony of the ruling class. Civil rights movements, anti-imperialist struggles, and feminist movements further contribute to this process by exposing and resisting the intersectional dimensions of capitalist oppression. Revolutionary uprisings, such as the Bolshevik Revolution, function as moments of quantum collapse, where the contradictions within the capitalist system reach a critical threshold, leading to the emergence of a new socio-economic order. However, quantum dialectics also teaches that these transitions are not deterministic—capitalist crises do not automatically lead to socialism but create probabilistic conditions where multiple outcomes are possible. Whether a crisis results in socialist transformation, fascist reaction, or neoliberal stabilization depends on the intervention of revolutionary forces that can effectively harness decohesion to dismantle the existing order while constructing a new, coherent socialist framework. Thus, class struggle, when viewed through quantum dialectics, is a dynamic and fluid process, where revolutionaries must not only analyze existing contradictions but strategically engage with the interplay of cohesive and decohesive forces to guide history toward socialist transformation.

In the framework of quantum dialectics, the concept of dynamic equilibrium highlights that societal systems are never truly static but exist in a continuous state of flux, shaped by the interaction between opposing forces. In the context of class struggle, this equilibrium is maintained by the tension between inward cohesive forces, which stabilize the existing order, and outward decohesive forces, which push for systemic transformation. Unlike mechanical equilibrium, which assumes a fixed balance, dynamic equilibrium is inherently unstable and constantly shifting as economic, political, and ideological contradictions intensify or subside. Capitalist societies maintain relative stability by reinforcing cohesive forces—legal institutions, ideological hegemony, mass surveillance, and state repression—to suppress revolutionary potential and ensure the continuity of class dominance. However, systemic contradictions—exploitation, economic crises, growing inequality, and mass alienation—generate decohesive forces that challenge this equilibrium. These forces manifest in the form of labor strikes, protests, revolutionary movements, and ideological shifts that weaken the structural integrity of the capitalist system. Quantum dialectics suggests that equilibrium is not permanently maintained; instead, it undergoes phase transitions when decohesive forces accumulate to the point where the system can no longer re-stabilize under its existing conditions. This leads to moments of crisis—historical turning points where multiple probabilistic outcomes emerge. For example, the Great Depression of the 1930s disrupted the capitalist equilibrium, leading to different resolutions in different regions: Roosevelt’s New Deal reforms in the U.S., fascist reaction in Germany and Italy, and socialist transformation in the Soviet Union. These outcomes were not predetermined but depended on the strategic interventions of class forces operating within a fluctuating political field. Revolutionaries must therefore engage in continuous dialectical analysis, assessing the evolving balance between cohesion and decohesion, recognizing when a system is merely undergoing temporary instability and when it is nearing a point of rupture where revolutionary action can decisively shift the equilibrium toward socialism. Failure to correctly interpret these shifts can lead to either adventurism (acting prematurely before conditions are ripe) or opportunism (failing to act when conditions demand intervention). By applying quantum dialectics, revolutionaries can develop a scientifically grounded, flexible strategy that not only responds to existing contradictions but actively works to accelerate decohesion at critical moments, ensuring that when capitalist equilibrium collapses, it does not regenerate in a new form but is replaced by a coherent socialist order.

In the framework of quantum dialectics, periods of relative stability within capitalism can be understood as phases where cohesive forces temporarily outweigh decohesive forces, preventing systemic collapse while maintaining the dominance of the ruling class. However, this stability is never absolute; it exists in a dynamic equilibrium, where the contradictions of capitalism continue to accumulate beneath the surface. To sustain this equilibrium, the ruling class often introduces reformist concessions, such as labor laws, welfare programs, and progressive taxation, as mechanisms to absorb and neutralize the growing decohesive pressures of working-class unrest. These reforms do not fundamentally alter the exploitative structure of capitalism but function as controlled dissipative mechanisms—allowing just enough socio-economic adjustment to prevent revolutionary rupture while preserving bourgeois control. The New Deal in the United States, the post-war welfare state in Western Europe, and India’s socialist-leaning policies during the Nehruvian era all exemplify moments where the ruling class, faced with rising labor militancy, economic crises, or socialist alternatives, implemented strategic recalibrations to stabilize capitalist coherence. However, quantum dialectics reveals that these reforms, while stabilizing in the short term, introduce new contradictions in the long term. For instance, welfare programs may improve workers’ conditions but also raise expectations, leading to renewed demands that challenge the very limits of capitalist accumulation. Similarly, labor protections may temporarily pacify working-class agitation but simultaneously strengthen class consciousness, as workers recognize their collective power in forcing concessions from capital. These contradictions create latent decohesive forces that, when intensified by economic downturns, political miscalculations, or global crises, can push the system back toward instability and potential rupture. Revolutionaries must understand that while reforms can alleviate immediate suffering, they do not represent a resolution of class contradictions but rather a recalibration of equilibrium, postponing but not eliminating the need for revolutionary transformation. The strategic task, therefore, is not to reject reforms outright but to utilize them dialectically—leveraging concessions to strengthen working-class organization and class consciousness, ensuring that when capitalist stability falters again, the proletariat is prepared not just to demand further reforms but to fundamentally alter the system itself.

In the framework of quantum dialectics, social transformation does not occur in a linear or predetermined fashion but emerges from the dynamic interplay of cohesive and decohesive forces within a given system. When outward decohesive forces, such as mass mobilization, revolutionary movements, or systemic crises, reach a critical threshold, they destabilize the existing equilibrium, creating a moment of historical superposition where multiple potential futures coexist. At these junctures, the contradictions that had been contained through legal, ideological, and economic stabilizers—such as reforms or state repression—can no longer maintain coherence, leading to a phase transition in which the system collapses into a new state. The intensity of class struggle in these moments determines whether society undergoes a reformist restructuring that restores equilibrium under new terms (such as the transition from feudalism to capitalism) or whether a revolutionary rupture leads to the emergence of an entirely new social order (such as socialist revolutions). Historical events such as the French Revolution, which dismantled feudal structures and accelerated the rise of capitalism, or the Russian Revolution, which sought to replace capitalist relations with socialism, illustrate the probabilistic nature of social change—revolutions are not predetermined but emerge from the dialectical resolution of contradictions at a moment of heightened decoherence. However, just as in quantum systems, where an unstable state can collapse into multiple possible outcomes, the success or failure of revolutionary movements depends on the strategic interventions of class forces during these critical periods. If revolutionaries are sufficiently organized and ideologically prepared, they can direct the collapse toward socialist transformation. If not, counter-revolutionary forces may intervene to either restore capitalist equilibrium through authoritarian stabilization or redirect mass discontent toward reactionary outcomes, such as fascism or nationalist militarism. Thus, quantum dialectics teaches that while systemic crises create the conditions for revolutionary change, their resolution is not automatic—it depends on the ability of the proletariat and its revolutionary leadership to act decisively, harnessing the moment of instability to construct a new, coherent socialist order rather than allowing capitalism to regenerate under a different guise.

In the framework of quantum dialectics, the interplay between inward cohesive forces, outward decohesive forces, and dynamic equilibrium provides a probabilistic yet structured understanding of class struggle and social transformation. Inward cohesive forces—such as state institutions, legal frameworks, ideological hegemony, and economic incentives—function to maintain systemic stability by suppressing contradictions and ensuring that the capitalist order remains intact. However, just as quantum coherence in physical systems is not absolute but subject to external perturbations, these forces cannot permanently contain the contradictions inherent in capitalism. Over time, systemic contradictions—rising inequality, economic crises, environmental destruction, and class oppression—intensify, generating outward decohesive forces in the form of labor movements, political uprisings, and ideological ruptures that challenge the ruling order. These decohesive forces are not merely destructive but hold the creative potential for transformation, as they break apart outdated social structures and open new pathways for revolutionary change. This dialectical process is not chaotic or random; it follows the logic of dynamic equilibrium, where society oscillates between periods of stability and instability, with each crisis creating the potential for either progressive transformation or reactionary consolidation. The revolutionary impulse—whether in the form of mass strikes, political revolutions, or counter-hegemonic cultural shifts—disrupts the existing equilibrium and forces a qualitative reorganization of the mode of production. Yet, just as in quantum mechanics, where systems in superposition can collapse into multiple possible outcomes, the resolution of class contradictions does not follow a single, predetermined trajectory. Whether a crisis leads to socialism, fascism, or a reconfigured capitalist order depends on the strength, organization, and strategic interventions of class-conscious revolutionary forces. This means that social change is not a passive, automatic process but requires scientific analysis, dialectical engagement, and timely revolutionary action to ensure that the collapse of capitalist equilibrium leads not to reactionary retrenchment but to a new, coherent socialist order. By applying this perspective, revolutionaries can develop a precise yet flexible strategy that accounts for both the inherent contradictions of capitalism and the probabilistic nature of historical transformation, ensuring that moments of instability become opportunities for systemic rupture and socialist construction.

In the framework of quantum dialectics, the survival of capitalism through successive crises and revolutionary challenges is not a sign of its invincibility but rather a demonstration of its ability to temporarily restore coherence through counteracting cohesive forces. However, this coherence is never absolute; it is dynamic and fragile, constantly threatened by internal contradictions that generate outward decohesive forces. The concentration of wealth, the relentless exploitation of labor, and the accelerating destruction of the environment are not mere anomalies but structural contradictions inherent in capitalism, which create increasing instability over time. These contradictions manifest as economic crises, mass unrest, and ideological fractures, which push against the system’s stability, generating probabilistic openings for revolutionary rupture. Yet, capitalism has so far maintained its equilibrium by deploying its vast network of cohesive forces—state repression, legal structures that protect private property, media propaganda that normalizes inequality, and even reformist policies designed to pacify dissent. These mechanisms function similarly to quantum coherence, preventing systemic collapse by keeping the capitalist order intact even as contradictions intensify. However, quantum dialectics teaches that this balance is not permanent; as contradictions deepen, the probability of systemic decoherence increases, leading to moments of crisis where the system can no longer stabilize itself. At these historical tipping points, the future exists in a state of superposition, where multiple outcomes—revolutionary transformation, fascist reaction, or capitalist restructuring—are all possible. The resolution of such crises depends on the strength and strategic action of revolutionary forces to guide the collapse of capitalist equilibrium toward socialism rather than reactionary stabilization. If these forces are weak or disorganized, capitalism may temporarily restore coherence through new mechanisms of control, but each cycle of crisis and recovery weakens the system further, increasing the likelihood of eventual systemic rupture. By applying quantum dialectics, revolutionaries can move beyond simplistic, deterministic expectations of collapse and instead focus on scientific, dialectically informed strategies to intervene at key moments of instability, ensuring that capitalism’s inevitable breakdown results in the emergence of a new, coherent socialist order rather than a reconfiguration of capitalist domination.

In the framework of quantum dialectics, class struggle is not a rigid, linear process but a probabilistic and dynamic interplay between stability and transformation, shaped by the continuous interaction of inward cohesive forces, outward decohesive forces, and dynamic equilibrium. Historical materialism identifies the fundamental contradiction between the bourgeoisie and proletariat, driven by their opposing material interests—one class seeks to extract surplus value and maintain control over the means of production, while the other seeks liberation from exploitation and the redistribution of wealth. However, quantum dialectics refines this analysis by showing that these class contradictions do not evolve in a mechanical or predetermined fashion; rather, they exist in a fluctuating superposition, where multiple potential outcomes coexist until decisive social forces collapse the system into a new historical state. Inward cohesive forces, such as ideological hegemony, legal structures, and the state’s repressive apparatus, attempt to maintain the coherence of capitalist society by suppressing revolutionary tendencies, ensuring that the working class remains within the existing framework of exploitation. Meanwhile, outward decohesive forces—economic crises, worker uprisings, ideological ruptures—push against this stability, creating moments of systemic instability where the established order can no longer contain its contradictions. This tension produces a state of dynamic equilibrium, where capitalism is constantly balancing between stability and collapse, adapting through reforms, coercion, and crisis management. However, as contradictions accumulate, the likelihood of phase transitions—moments of historical rupture—increases, leading to revolutionary openings where new socio-economic structures can emerge. Whether these moments result in socialist transformation or capitalist reconfiguration depends on the ability of revolutionary forces to intervene strategically. Thus, class struggle is not merely the engine of transformation but also a reflection of capitalism’s inherent contradictions, oscillating between coherence and decoherence. Through this enriched framework, revolutionaries can move beyond static interpretations of class conflict and adopt a scientifically grounded, adaptive strategy that anticipates and guides systemic breakdown toward socialism, rather than allowing capitalism to restore its equilibrium through reactionary or reformist means.