Marxian and Hegelian Dialectics: A Materialist Interpretation of History

The Hegelian and Marxian Dialectics

The Hegelian dialectic serves a complete and finished system of world history. Based on contradiction, it interprets and justifies the world, rather than transforming it. In contrast, the Marxian dialectic is open and unfinished, reflecting the incomplete nature of history and the real world. It aims to transform reality, not justify it, focusing on the contradictions within reality itself. Marx's dialectic is a dialectic of reality (the "subject"), not of ideas. It is a revolutionary dialectic of transformation.

Marx's Materialist Dialectic

Marx, a materialist, sought to synthesize Hegelian idealism with his materialism, creating dialectical materialism. His fundamental intuition is that history is simultaneously materialist and dialectical. Dialectical materialism (formulated by Engels and adopted from Hegel) is based on the law of negation of negation. Change negates what existed previously, and contradictions are resolved by overcoming the situation that created them. The new can only exist on the ruins of the old. This dialectic has a triadic nature: thesis-antithesis-synthesis (claim-denial-denial of the denial).

Historical Materialism

Marx applied the dialectic to history and economics, a doctrine known as historical materialism (sometimes called "dialectical and historical materialism"). Materialism is a form of determinism: the specific (the economy) determines the abstract (thinking, ideas), which in turn determines the level of material development awareness. Marx believed he had discovered how to unite dialectical materialism and history. History, determined by economics, is in perpetual movement and change. This is a "inversion" of Hegelian idealism, where material and economic principles dictate ideas, not the other way around. His materialism opposes both Hegelian idealism and "classic" materialism.

Engels and the Relationship Between Thinking and Being

Engels stated that the fundamental problem of philosophy, especially modern philosophy, is the relationship between thinking and being, between spirit and nature. The question is not to deny either term, but to determine its priority. Idealism prioritizes thought over being, while classic materialism prioritizes being over thought. Classic materialism lacks a dialectical and historical character; it is an abstract and mechanistic materialism. Its object of contemplation is not an active man who transforms nature.

Historical Materialism and Social Change

Historical materialism explains social change through the distinction between a society's economic structure (the basis for explaining all other societal strata) and its ideological superstructure (a justification of reality). The economic structure, comprising relations of production between humans based on their relation to the forces of production (tools, machines, techniques, human strength), determines the legal, political, and ideological structures. The dominant ideology reflects the ideology of the ruling class.

Marx's Historical Teleology

Marx believed in historical teleology—that history has an end (telos): the triumph of the working class and the establishment of a socialist society (social ownership of the means of production). A distinction must be made between the post-socialist revolution (characterized by the dictatorship of the proletariat) and communism, the phase where social classes disappear. In this utopian communist society, each will produce according to their ability and consume according to their needs, ending the subjugation of man to power. To each according to his needs, from each according to his possibilities.