The thing one must understand about Historical Materialism, is the very poor source of intellect from which such an idea stems. Let me explain:

From Engels:

"Is it a misfortune that magnificent California was seized from the lazy Mexicans who did not know what to do with it?"

From Marx:

"It is now completely clear to me that he, as is proved by his cranial formation and his hair, descends from the Negroes who had joined Moses’ exodus from Egypt, assuming that his mother or grandmother on the paternal side had not interbred with a n****r. Now this union of Judaism and Germanism with a basic Negro substance must produce a peculiar product. The obtrusiveness of the fellow is also n****r-like."

From Engels:

"Being in his quality as a n****r, a degree nearer to the rest of the animal kingdom than therest of us, he is undoubtedly the most appropriate representative of that district."

From Marx:

"What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. ... Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man — and turns them into commodities. ... The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange. ... The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general."

It is clear that when ignorant racists such as Marx and Engels say things like, ""Without violence nothing is ever accomplished in history." They really are just talking about the same gratuitous violence that they described the world to have been materialized by, that they hope to foist upon the world themselves. So you see, the concept "Historical Materialism," is little more than the seething, racist, hatred within them both bubbling up to the surface to justify starting a movement that would hopefully destroy everyone they dubbed "oppressors," which was a term applied to everyone that wasn't them, and was really just a projection of their own poor self-esteem. More ignorant, racism from these two here: https://www.d11.org/cms/lib/CO02201641/Centricity/Domain/3824/Karl%20Marx%20writings%20reveal%20a%20racist%20philosophy.pdf

On the other hand, there is an actual, non-racist explanation of this kind of concept, one that is much more intellectual and scientific. You can find that here, called "Distributed Cognition.": https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00490/full

However much stupid racism Marx and Engels came up with (not to diminish it) this isn't a good refutation of dialectical materialism, unless you think that some having even deeply ingrained racist views invalidates all their other views (this cannot be true without qualification).

As for what it is - it's roughly the idea that the world has a materialist basis (i.e. we don't need to invoke God, or immaterial souls, or transcendental ideas, to explain it), but this materialist basis itself changes under it's own interactions with itself. In contrast, non-dialectical materialism takes it that the material basis is unchanging, and simply changes in shape and arrangement. I've got no idea whether it's true or not, or whether it's an integral part of Marxism or not - the economics of which I'm very sympathetic to.

I’ve heard of Hegelian idealism but I’d be lying if I said that I’d made an effort to read the phenomenology of spirit. — Average

Simplifying. Hegel often referred to his method as dialectical history. That ideas which are commonly believed eventually are discovered to contradict themselves.

Marx wrongly thought Hegel was an idealist, but nonetheless used his concept of necessary contradictions in history. Thus, capitalism had contradictions that would lead to socialism.

Yeah, that too. Or at least, both of us are glossing it. If you're specifically interested in it, definitely look into it. But don't worry too much if you have a load of Marxists telling you you don't understand the essential nature of dialectic etc. Maybe they're right, but if they are, it's so abstract, that I don't see how it's essential for the goals of the socialist left, which is the democratic transformation of society. We can't surely expect everyone to understand this guff. It's not exactly "Punch Up, Not Down" is it?

I read a great book which had alot of Hegel in it (surprisingly) recently - it was In The Long Run, We're All Dead:Keynesianism, Political Economy and Revolution, by Geoff Mann. Also good on Keynes, Robespierre, and the guy also knows his Marx well.

it's roughly the idea that the world has a materialist basis (i.e. we don't need to invoke God, or immaterial souls, or transcendental ideas, to explain it), but this materialist basis itself changes under it's own interactions with itself. — RolandTyme

Thank you for providing such a succinct definition!

Simplifying. Hegel often referred to his method as dialectical history. That ideas which are commonly believed eventually are discovered to contradict themselves.

Marx wrongly thought Hegel was an idealist, but nonetheless used his concept of necessary contradictions in history. Thus, capitalism had contradictions that would lead to socialism. — Jackson

I can't help but wonder what a "contradiction" is exactly. I've tried to rap my head around the Maoist concept of "contradiction" but admittedly I haven't made much progress. Even discussing the term in it's purely logical sense is still something I find difficult. My conception of "contradiction" is probably confined to my reading of Plato's Euthyphro.

Marx took Greek and Hegelian Dialectics and applied it to Economic Theory. He coined a phrase that remains synonymous with Marxism...."Class struggle".

Marx took Greek and Hegelian Dialectics and applied it to Economic Theory. — Hillary

What are you referring to when you mention "Greek and Hegelian Dialectics"? I've heard the word "Dialectics" before but I won't pretend to understand ancient Greek or German philosophy.

The philosophical concept of "Dialectics" originated with the Greeks around 2500 years ago with an Anatolian/Ephesian philosopher named, Heraclitus. It was Heraclitus' paradoxical proverbs-("A road going up and a road going down are one and the same" & "War is the Father of all things"), that helped to influence a popular movement within Greek philosophy for many centuries. However, with regard to the examination, analysis and teaching of history and economics, the ancient Greeks did not incorporate dialectics. For the Greeks, dialectics was both rhetorical, as well as philosophical, though had no relation to the historical or the economic.

For the Greeks, dialectics was both rhetorical, as well as philosophical, though had no relation to the historical or the economic. — Hillary

Thank you for this information. I'm quite fond of rhetoric as a subject.

For the Greeks, dialectics was both rhetorical, as well as philosophical, though had no relation to the historical or the economic. — Hillary

For Aristotle dialectic was the pursuit of truth and rhetoric is the art of persuasion. They are opposites.

interesting

For Aristotle dialectic was the pursuit of truth and rhetoric is the art of persuasion. They are opposites. — Jackson

To persuade you must know to speak the local dialect in your rhetoric.

To persuade you must know to speak the local dialect in your rhetoric. — Hillary

Which is different from dialectic.

Marx wrongly thought Hegel was an idealist, but nonetheless used his concept of necessary contradictions in history. Thus, capitalism had contradictions that would lead to socialism. — Jackson

I’m interested in learning more about this subject and the different interpretations people have of it. Is it pure sophistry or does it contain some truth? I understand that this is probably a controversial subject. I’m not really an expert when it comes to materialist dialectics so I won’t try to offer a defense of any political doctrine or function as some sort of apologist for different historical figures. — Average

Hegel was an idealist in the sense that Hegel's though essentially deals with the conceptual and the conceptual apparatus we have of the world essentially determines what happens to it. It is complicated though because in the Phenomenology of Spirit, the idea moves because of the subject an his worldly praxis. However Hegel is at least widely perceived to put the ideational before the practical. Anyway, He does give a lot of credit to our theoretical determination of the world.

The idea moves in a certain way, it moves dialectically, meaning that a certain theory or worldview runs into contradictions and will engender opposition, leading to a new theory which manages to make sense of this earlier contradiction.

Marx puts Hegel on his head or radicalizes Hegel, depending one the way you look at it. In any case Marx is adamant in saying that economic relations of power determine our worldview. He does keep the dialectical movement though in the sense that he thinks economic power relations tend to engender opposition as well, just like Hegel assumed with ideas and theory. A certain distribution will be 'negated', by this opposition who will fight for a different division of economic power. whereas in Hegel the clash is ideal, one concept being contested by another, in Marx it is practical, so, revolutionary.

It is therefore incorrect to say dia-mat is a political doctrine, it is more of a view of the world. It is a theory, actually, a certain model of the way the world could work.

Hegel was an idealist in the sense that Hegel's though essentially deals with the conceptual and the conceptual apparatus we have of the world essentially determines what happens to it. — Tobias

Hegel never denied the reality of physical life and did not think reality was the ideal or conceptual. Marx wrongly defined Hegel as a idealist.

However Hegel is at least widely perceived to put the ideational before the practical. — Tobias

Hegel was not a political activist. Most political philosophers do not want to be activists. Marx was different.

It is therefore incorrect to say dia-mat is a political doctrine, it is more of a view of the world. It is a theory, actually, a certain model of the way the world could work. — Tobias

which is why, I think, 20th Century communism was more than simply a political movement, it was akin to a kind of religion or secular religion or at the very least an ideologically-constructed view of the world.

'Marx’s theory of ideology is presented in The German Ideology (Marx and Engels [1845-49] 1970). Marx uses the term “ideology” to refer to a system of ideas through which people understand their world. A central theoretical assertion in Marx’s writings is the view that “ideology” and thought are dependent on the material circumstances in which the person lives. Material circumstances determine consciousness, rather than consciousness determining material reality: “The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill society with the industrial capitalist” (Marx 1971). A system of ideology plays the role of supporting the class advantage of the dominant class, according to Marxist theory. The concept of commodity fetishism is discussed in Capital (Marx 1977). Marx uses this concept to refer to the pervasive and defining illusion that exists in a commodity society. A commodity is perceived solely in terms of its money equivalent (its price), rather than being understood as standing within a set of social relations of production. The labor of the operator of the shoe-sewing machine disappears and we see only the money value of the shoes. Marx believes that this is a socially important form of mystification; the market society erases the relations of domination and exploitation on which it depends.'

This in turn is linked to the later development in Marxist theory of 'false consciousness' which (I think) becomes central in (for example) critical theory.

:100: :up:

Hegel never denied the reality of physical life and did not think reality was the ideal or conceptual. Marx wrongly defined Hegel as a idealist. — Jackson

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_idealism

Wiki is for beginners. I am no beginner.

I am no beginner. — Jackson

If you have to say so ... :lol:

Well, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) ain't for beginners, Mr. "No Beginner" ...
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel/ :fire:

If you have an argument make it.

Your statement that "Hegel is not an idealist" is incorrect and that Marx had "defined" him as such – Hegel defines himself as an idealist (read The Phenomenology of Mind) – is uninformed. Besides @Tobias' apt précis, I've also provided you links to resources with which you may educate yourself further (seeing as the scholarship therein refutes both of your claims). Avail yourself to them or persist in beginner's error – that's up to you.

Hegel defines himself as an idealist (read The Phenomenology of Mind) — 180 Proof

Where does Hegel call himself an idealist in the Phenomenology?

You can read, cant you? Start with the SEP link ...

You can read, cant you? Start with the SEP link ... — 180 Proof

So, you have nothing. Good day.

Marx puts Hegel on his head or radicalizes Hegel, depending one the way you look at it. — Tobias

So Hegel took mind as fundamental, Marx took mater as fundamental. Hence the term "dialectic materialism" serves to differentiate Marx's dialectic notions from those of Hegel. It's indicative of the rejection by Marx of Hegelian idealism.



See also SEP on Hegel's dialectics. The article on Marx seeks to display the multifarious ways in which he has been understood.

Here you go, Mr "I am no beginner" :sweat:

The proposition that the finite is ideal constitutes Idealism. The idealism of philosophy consists in nothing else than in recognising that the finite has no veritable being. Every philosophy is essentially an idealism or at least has idealism for its principle, and the question then is only how far this principle is actually carried out. ... A philosophy which ascribed veritable, ultimate, absolute being to finite existence as such, would not deserve the name of philosophy; the principles of ancient or modern philosophies, water, or matter, or atoms are thoughts, universals, ideal entities, not things as they immediately present themselves to us, ... in fact what is, is only the one concrete whole from which the moments are inseparable.” — GWF Hegel, Science of Logic, §316

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/help/mean08.htm

Here you go, Mr "I am no beginner" — 180 Proof

We are done.

:rofl:

:up: