The scope and importance of the present work is manifest even to a casual glance; the actual heights of scholarly penetration and disinterestedness to which it rises can only be appreciated by the detailed examination of its text. From this latter examination, it readily appears that we are confronted with no ad hoc construction, no work cut, so to say, to fit a present need, however valid and cogent; but a work reflecting a near lifetime of application and animated by (...) a relentless devotion to documentary truth. For this reason, any account of it must, in simple justice, begin with a brief historical notice of the work itself. (shrink)

This chapter explains the “progressive elaboration” of Louis Althusser’s philosophy in relation to materialism. First, it shows the way in which Althusser’s thinking about materialism, Marxism, Marx’s materialism, and the correct materialism for Marxism had its roots in earlier Marxist reflection on the metaphysics of matter and science. Second, it demonstrates how Althusser’s materialism changed over time. In broad terms, this change can be described as the transition from a Marxist materialism that fully endorsed (...) dialectical logic to one that denied dialectical logic and ontology in the name of a materialism of chance and for the sake of Marxist politics. Another way of stating this is that, gradually, Althusser began to see Historical Materialism as that which is essential to Marxism and Dialectical Materialism as that “horror” which compromised the Marxist movement both theoretically and practically. (shrink)

Following an initial section, in which the relation of materialism to positivism and agnosticism is discussed, and the latter views criticized, a formal definition of dialectical materialism is given. Materialism is contrasted to idealism and dualism. Dialectics is contrasted to metaphysics. Some additional assumptions, usually included in dialectics, such as the interpenetrating character of the levels of science, and rationalism, are listed. In a section devoted to the relation between matter and spirit, the foundations of materialist (...) ethics are laid by stating the humanist axiom of purpose. In the last section, historical materialism is defined, and some reasons for the occasional entanglement of scientific, philosophical, and political controversies are discussed. (shrink)

The critical stance adopted by Iran's prominent communist party, the Tudeh Party, toward psychoanalysis is illustrated through a polemical essay preceding the translation of A Primer of Freudian Psychology. Echoing the Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union, who vehemently criticized psychoanalysis as a ‘bourgeois science’, Hushang Tizabi, a translator affiliated with the Tudeh Party, delves into the shortcomings of Freudian thought in the preface to his rendition, contrasting it with the ‘bright dialectical materialism’ inherent in Marxian ideology. This article (...) represents an intersection between Marxism and Freudianism in a nation not communist in the vein of the Soviet Union but significantly influenced by socialist discourse. It exemplifies how prefatory materials in translation can alter the politico-ideological stance of a text, offering new interpretations and emphasizing specific elements while potentially overlooking other significant aspects. This discussion also contextualizes translations within the historical landscape of humanities in Iran. (shrink)

The article examines the significance of “postmetaphysics” as a continuation of Derrida’s philosophy of deconstruction for resolving the philosophical conflict between the transcendental and dialectical traditions of thought. The “postmetaphysical” trend seeks to rethink the relationship between language and power, trying to find a way to talk about power in a way that does not theoretically reproduce the power of metaphysical discourse. It also seeks to avoid the mistake of systems that criticize metaphysical discourse, which is that the criticism (...) itself often takes on a sophisticated form of metaphysics, the source of which is hidden as much as possible. The central phenomenon that is deconstructed in Christian postmetaphysical philosophy in the text is “political ontotheology”, that is, the powerful metaphysical discourse used to build a political ideology. At the beginning of the article, the author examines two ways of formulating onto-theology in philosophy — transcendental and dialectical. It is argued that both directions in the modern era are confronted with their own impasse: transcendentalism cannot conceive of theory as a practical realization of thought, dialectics cannot get rid of the formulation of transcendental supra-historical truth in its practice. The text synthesizes the concepts of Caputo, Vattimo, and Desmond in order to propose a political-religious project that continues Derrida’s philosophy. It is concluded that post-metaphysics as a “weak thought” can change and weaken political structures without completely dialectically moving into political onto-theology, but it cannot be a field completely independent of metaphysics or replace it. (shrink)

B a c k g r o u n d. The current research focuses on Ukraine's academic philosophical culture in the second half of the 20th century during the Soviet era, emphasising the historical and methodological bases of truth interpretation by its representatives. Using descriptive methodology and comparative analysis, it was found that the Ukrainian academic philosophy of this period, represented here by the legacy of recognised figures often referred to in the philosophical literature as the Kyiv School of (...) Philosophy, is a revival of philosophy in Ukraine based on so-called "authentic" Marxism-Leninism. M e t h o d s. In particular, to analyse the concept of truth, representatives of the Ukrainian academic philosophical culture of the studied period employed the dialectical method, which is interpreted in dialectical materialism through the concept of the "development" of the material universe. Specifically, within this dialectics of nature, dialectical negation is considered a stage of object development in which the achievements of the earlier stages are not eliminated but rather "removed" – contained within it. R e s u l t s. The interpretation of logic as a theoretical reflection of historical patterns in theoretical form enabled them to define truth as correspondence to reality and analyse it through the lens of the dialectical inter-transformation of the categories of subjective and objective, relative and absolute. The application of the dialectical method to the concepts of "relative" and "absolute" resulted in the identification of "relatively absolute," "absolutely relative" truth, and the opposition of the "relatively absolute truth" to the "absolutely absolute truth." They regard the latter – absolutely absolute truth – as an unreachable ideal that serves as a regulative principle, the pursuit of which promotes cognitive progress through the accumulation of partial, relative truths. C o n c l u s i o n s. Thus, in the second half of the 20th century, during the Soviet era, representatives of Ukraine's academic philosophical culture employed dialectical materialism methodology to define the concept of truth, allowing them to justify the process of cognition as complex and endless. At the same time, as representatives of that era's academic philosophy have emphasised, on the path to achieving relative truths, in addition to objective dialectical contradictions, there are also subjective formal-logical errors and mistakes that can only be distinguished from objective contradictions through practical verification. (shrink)

The purpose of this article is to initiate a philosophical discussion about the ethical component of professional competence in nursing from the perspective of Brazilian nurses. Specifically, this article discusses professional competence in nursing practice in the Brazilian health context, based on two different conceptual frameworks. The first framework is derived from the idealistic and traditional approach while the second views professional competence through the lens of historical and dialectical materialism theory. The philosophical analyses show that the (...) idealistic view of professional competence differs greatly from practice. Combining nursing professional competence with philosophical perspectives becomes a challenge when ideals are opposed by the reality and implications of everyday nursing practice. (shrink)

This paper discusses some recent developments in the Marxian theory of value, called value-form theory, which have gone along with a methodological shift from a linear logic and historical dialectics to a dialectical logic and systematic dialectics. In order to appreciate these developments within the Marxian paradigm, it is useful to make two introductory remarks: first, on some peculiarities of Marxian discourse and, second, about discrepancies in Marx's Capital.

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity has a copyright on the body of the work. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and (...) made generally available to the public. To ensure a quality reading experience, this work has been proofread and republished using a format that seamlessly blends the original graphical elements with text in an easy-to-read typeface. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant. (shrink)

In his very influential book, History and Class Consciousness, Lukács argued that Engels illegitimately extended Marx's dialectical method beyond the social realm to the realm of nature and in doing so replaced Marx's dialectical theory of knowledge (in which subject and object are reciprocally trans formed) with a contemplative reflection theory (in which subject and object "persist in their old, rigid opposition").1 Since then, and very much in the same spirit, many others have located the difference between Marx (...) and Engels not in their treatments of historical materialism or method but in Engels' acceptance of a dialectic of nature and a theory of reflection.2 I shall try to argue precisely the opposite, namely, that their differences are to be located in the former, far more than in the latter, areas. (shrink)

This is a slightly revised English translation of the third German edition of Bocheński.’s now near-classic introduction to Soviet philosophy. It still remains the best short introduction to the field and can be unhesitatingly recommended for all interested in learning something about philosophy in Soviet Russia. The body of the work is divided into two sections, one historical and the other systematic. The historical section presents both the Western and the Russian origins of dialectical materialism as (...) well as a discussion of the development and characteristics of Soviet philosophy. The systematic section explains and critically evaluates the content of diamat with emphasis on materialism and dialectics. This portion of the book, originally written in 1950, was revised in 1956. The reader should bear in mind that present-tense judgments refer to this latter date. While most of the material is still pertinent, some—for instance the emphasis on Stalin—is not. Newer material appears in the second of the two appendixes. (shrink)

In this illuminating and wide-ranging philosophical treatise, Brian Morris critiques broad swathes of recent theory as he seeks to reclaim anthropology as a historical social science. He achieves this by grounding it within a metaphysic of "dialectical naturalism" or "evolutionary realism"--a tradition long ignored by academic philosophy. After reviewing the anthropological background of this worldview--the Greeks and the Enlightenment--Morris explores two essential themes. First, he critically assesses the main forms of dialectical naturalism, including Darwin's evolutionary theory, Marx's (...) historical materialism, and the hylo-realism of the philosopher-scientist Mario Bunge. Second, he offers a strong plea to retain the dual heritage of anthropology as a historical science that combines both humanism and naturalism. A powerful philosophical manifesto, the book cogently upholds dialectical naturalism as the most grounding philosophy for anthropology and the social sciences. (shrink)

An introduction to the mode of production, explains a social order's base and superstructure, people as decisive in social development, classes and class struggle, the state, revolutionary change, social consciousness.

Boris Hessen’s ‘The Social and Economic Roots of Newton’s Principia’ (see https://doi.org./10.1163/1569206X-00002041) is considered a pioneering work in the historiography of the natural sciences. For some, it marks the founding moment of the ‘externalist’ approach to this field of study. Previously, Hessen published another paper on Newton entitled ‘Preface to Articles by A. Einstein and J.J. Thomson’, which, some maintain, bears a stronger resemblance to works in the ‘internalist’ camp of the historiography of the natural sciences. For decades, scholars have (...) puzzled over why Hessen chose to argue for, seemingly, diametrically opposed positions. In this paper, however, I argue that Hessen does not advance two different historiographical methods, but a single, dialectical-materialist approach that accounts for the ‘unity in opposition’ of the external and internal dimensions of natural-scientific theory. I draw from Hessen’s two papers on Newton, his previously untranslated writings, as well as selections from the secondary literature. (shrink)

Machine generated contents note: Dialectic of Praxis -- I. Philosophy of Subjectivity and -- Historical Materialism 7 -- A. What is the "Toposical Tachiba"? 7 -- B. The Present and Past of Umemoto's Theory of Subjectivity 17 -- C. The Basis and Structure of Degeneration 36 -- II. Confused 'Dialectic of the Subject of Cognition' 48 -- A. Destruction of the Logic of Origo 48 -- 1. Summary of Umemoto's Epistemology 49 -- 2. Umemoto's Defect in Epistemology 56 (...) -- 3. Reversed Hegelianism 60 -- B. Objective Cognition and the Logic of Self-Awareness 68 -- 1. Ontology and Epistemology 68 -- 2. Negation of "Two Circular Structures" 76 -- 3. Objective Cognition and Value Consciousness 82 -- C. Evaporation of Praxiology 89 -- 1. Alienation and Self-Awareness 89 -- 2. Objectivization of Praxis 96 -- 3. Strained Interpretation of Uno's Theory 99 -- 4. Political Economy, Materialist Outlook of History, -- and Praxiology 107 -- 5. A Domain Proper to the Theory of -- Revolutionizing Praxis 116 -- III. Defects in Criticism of Uno's Economics 131 -- A. Problem Awareness 132 -- B. Fall into a "View that the Principles are Lost -- in the Historical Process" 137 -- C. Historicistic Remedy for the Theory of the -- Circulation Form 155 -- 1. Beautification of a Distorting Tendency to -- Emphasize the Circulation Form 156 -- 2. Complementation of the 'Theory of Form -- without the Logic of Substance' 169 -- 3. On the Trans-Historicization of the -- 'Dual Character of Labour' 178 -- IV. Political Economy and -- Materialist Outlook of History 195 -- A. 'Anatomy of Bourgeois Society' and -- 'Anatomy of History' 195 -- B. Consolidation with Reversed Hegelianism 202 -- C. 'Logic of Circularity' and 'Logic of History' 218 -- V, Political Economy and the -- Logic of Revolutionization 231 -- A. Defects in the Understanding of Political Economy 232 -- B. Distortion of 'Labour-Power Commodity' 255 -- 1. On the Dialectic: Commodity Market and the -- Production Process 255 -- 2. Private Property and Capitalist Property 261 -- 3. Negation of the Negation: Sublation of the -- Commoditization of Labour-Power 268 -- C. Capitalist Thingivation and the -- Logic of its Revolutionization 282 -- Afterword 301 -- Supplementary Notes to the English Edition 303 -- Index 309. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Marx and Laozi: A Dialectical Synthesis by James ChambersReza Adeputra Tohis (bio)Marx and Laozi: A Dialectical Synthesis. By James Chambers. Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2023. Pp. xvii + 449, Hardcover €129.99, ISBN 978-3-031-40980-6.James Chambers’s Marx and Laozi: A Dialectical Synthesis (hereafter Marx and Laozi) attempts to connect the thoughts of Karl Marx, the philosopher and socialist revolutionary, with Laozi, the legendary founding figure of Daoism. Although (...) they come from vastly different cultural and philosophical backgrounds, in Marx and Laozi Chambers seeks to demonstrate that there is a dialectical synthesis between Marx’s materialist thought and Laozi’s aesthetic philosophy. The author’s primary aim is to explore the possibility of establishing a constructive dialogue between these two distinct traditions of thought. While acknowledging that the main challenge of his endeavor lies in the fundamental differences between Marx’s materialist perspective on social life and Laozi’s aesthetic approach to personal harmony, Chambers suggests that these seemingly unrelated views can actually complement each other, arguing that a dialectical approach can indeed render these differences complementary, leading to a more comprehensive perspective on philosophical and social issues. This approach positions Laozi as a “philosopher-artist,” complementing Marx’s role as a “philosopher-scientist.”Chambers employs a methodology that involves analyzing key texts from Marx and Laozi’s Daodejing through a dialectical lens. The author also uses this hermeneutical approach to find common ground between the key concepts of these two thinkers, such as dialectical materialism in Marx’s philosophy and Dao in Laozi’s teachings. Chambers does not fail to highlight the importance of understanding the historical and cultural contexts of each philosopher to uncover deeper meanings in their works.Marx and Laozi is divided into thirteen chapters, each exploring different aspects of Marx’s and Laozi’s thought. The Introduction provides an essential foundation for understanding the author’s approach to reading and interpreting three major thinkers: Hegel, Marx, and Laozi. Chambers emphasizes the need for readers to recognize that Marx and Laozi have very different characteristics in their methodologies and philosophical aims. Marx, with his dialectical materialist approach, focuses on history and social change through class struggle. In contrast, Laozi focuses on personal harmony and offers a more comprehensive [End Page 1] philosophical outlook encompassing concepts such as Dao and Wu Wei (non-action). Hegel is introduced as a crucial mediator in the dialogue between Marx and Laozi. Chambers argues that without understanding how Hegel views the world through idealism, it is difficult to fully appreciate how Marx developed his scientific materialism as a response to Hegel’s idealism. Here, Hegel serves as both an antagonist and a foundation for the subsequent development of Marx’s thought (pp. 3–22).Chapter 2, titled “Hegel’s Idealism,” further explores how Hegel developed his concept of idealism, particularly how this idealism relates to change and the fear of change. Chambers investigates how Hegel views the finite and infinite as interrelated concepts in a type of dialectics. This discussion is crucial to explaining how Marx adopted some of Hegel’s concepts, altering them to support his own more materialist views. The author also discusses how Hegel’s interpretation of reality is often misunderstood as mentalistic, while in fact Hegel perceives reality as dialectical, where what is real is a synthesis resulting from the dialectical interaction between idea and matter. This point is significant for understanding Marx’s subsequent critiques and revisions of dialectics within his materialist framework, where matter is considered more primary than ideas (pp. 49–69).Chapter 3, “Hegel’s Confrontation with Laozi,” critiques Hegel’s interpretation of Laozi, arguing that Hegel failed to capture the essence of Dao and Wu Wei. This is hardly surprising within the context of Western philosophy, especially considering that it is heavily centered on logic and abstract categories, and thus cannot easily accommodate notions such as Dao and Wu Wei. Hegel regarded Laozi as a figure trapped in unstructured mysticism, whereas, according to Chambers, Laozi actually offers a rich approach to understanding the cosmos and the role of individuals within it. This section is also critical towards what the author takes to be Hegel’s Eurocentric... (shrink)

: Studies of Chinese dialectical materialism have long neglected the important philosophical dimension of Hegelian thought and its influence on Chinese Marxism. This essay examines the work of Zhang Shiying of Beijing University, whose studies of Hegel's works on dialectical logic in the 1950s sought to clarify the nature of Hegel's speculative dialectic and its relation to dialectical materialism. Like Lenin before him, Zhang believed that Hegel's works on logic offered a more profound reflection on (...) materialism than had previously been recognized by Marxist critics of German idealism. Zhang's sensitive reading of both Hegel's Science of Logic and the Encyclopedia Logic highlights the problem of the speculative dialectic and negativity. Examined here is Zhang's analysis of the Hegelian dialectic in light of contemporary accounts of the role of Hegelian negativity in poststructuralist thought. (shrink)

This article aims to contribute to the Peircean studies by providing an account of the reception of Peirce’s philosophy in Russian academia. Peirce was introduced to Russian scholarship at the beginning of the twentieth century, but Russian scholars’ work on Peirce remains unnoticed for the most part in the international academic world. Presenting an outline of their research fills a certain gap in the Peircean studies demonstrating how Peirce was received in imperial Russia, the USSR and post-Soviet Russian academia. This (...) overview can also serve, to some extent, as a contribution to the studies in cross-cultural communication, because the authors present Russian philosophers’ take on an American philosopher considered in the context of the changing historical and cultural landscape. From being introduced to Peirce via a francophone scholar at the beginning of the twentieth century to criticizing Peirce from the stance of dialectical materialism during the Cold War and exploring Peirce’s original work from various angles in the recent decades, Russophone academics could not avoid being affected by the complexity of cross-cultural communication. (shrink)

The paper proves that a historical method in Marxism is not identified to a dialectical method. The logic of history and the logic of its analysis in Marxism do not always coincide. The Logical coincides with the Historical only in eternity as it actually occurs in the works by G.V.F. Hegel. Eternity which has already witnessed everything does not know history any more. In the same way, history also begins there where the eternity comes to an end. (...) Therefore, artificial identification of the Logical with the Historical in Marxism led sometimes to actual mistakes. It is no wonder that it has always caused discussions in Marxism. They are mainly explained by the fact that the deductive, abstract-to-concrete method in which the “General” appears before the “Concrete” is an anti-historical method in its Nature. In real human history the “General” which is generalization of many “Concrete” could not appear before the latter in any way. For this reason, the real historical materialism needs an inductive method of knowledge. Only in that case historical materialism will cease to remain the soviet “histmat” and becomes the real form of a new world outlook. The author is of the opinion that the Party spirit of the Soviet philosophy promoted preservation of the anomalies mentioned in Marxism. The open discussion could help to find valid but not inherited from Hegel relation of historical and logical methods in Marxism. (shrink)

This essay introduces Walter Benjamin’s historical materialism to illuminate how history teachers may invoke a critique of the past and present through democratizing the production of knowledge in the classroom. Historical materialism gives students access to the means of knowledge production and entrusts them with the task of generating a critique of politics though encounters with historical objects. The rise of the alt-right, alternative facts, and fake news sites necessitates social studies methods that intervene into (...) the fascist seductions of narrative in history. A Benjaminian pedagogy emphasizes reading practices that acknowledge the political layers of history inscribed within the objects. This generates space for forms of pessimism and dialectic critiques of barbarism that students may experience with history beyond the teacher’s capacity for understanding. In the name of democracy over fascism, the article adds a political critique to students’ historical and critical thinking skills. (shrink)

Psychological explanations of how behavior is acquired are compared between the US and pre- and post-Soviet. The comparison is drawn in terms of communist theories of 1-way and 2-way dialectical materialism. Evidence is brought to bear that physiological, necessary and sufficient interpretations , not only still exist in the former Soviet, but--for reasons other than communist theory--are on the upswing in the US. An advantage of America's more open society is that investigators are encouraged to challenge existing theories. (...) An experimental example is described in which conditioning influences underlying neurology, thereby demonstrating that the relation is not just unidirectional. While such findings are important, they do not diminish the need for psychology to maintain its own enterprise. 2012 APA, all rights reserved). (shrink)

Tony Smith Philosophy, Iowa State University Robert Brenner‟s recent monograph on the economics of global turbulence has renewed interest in one of the most important topics in Marxian thought, the theory of crisis tendencies in capitalism.1 In their introduction to Brenner‟s monograph the editors of The New Left Review praise him as a worthy successor to Marx in the strongest possible terms. In the eyes of a number of critics, however, Brenner is guilty of a major betrayal of Marx‟s legacy. (...) In Michael Lebowitz‟s view, for instance, Brenner should now be seen as a disciple of Adam Smith, not Karl Marx, while Fine, Lapavitsas, and Milonakis refer to Brenner‟s position as “a distinctly non-Marxist perspective.”. (shrink)

This essay reconstructs Agamben’s theory of bare life as an example of an affirmative biopolitics, a politics of life that lies beyond sovereignty. The essay shows that his account of bare life constitutes a reworking of four central motifs found in Marx’s historical materialism: the facticity of alienated existence, the fetishism of commodities, the profanity of bourgeois society, and the nihilism of revolution. Agamben’s renewal of historical materialism explicitly turns on an innovative and controversial synthesis of (...) Benjamin and Heidegger. This essay argues that such a synthesis relies, implicitly, on the negative dialectics developed by Adorno. If correct, this interpretation suggests a way of understanding Agamben’s political thought as a particularly radical and consequent continuation of the project of critical theory. (shrink)

Slavoj Žižek has been widely described as one of the most important and influential contemporary thinkers, philosophers, and cultural critics. However, despite the often critical attention and reviews his work garners in scholarly journal articles and books, systematic philosophical engagements with Žižek's thought remain a surprisingly rare phenomenon. Counteracting this dearth of substantive interaction, the contributors to this volume engage with crucial and fundamental aspects of Žižek's thought. The book follows a Hegelian motivation that is itself dear to Žižek, tracing (...) the concept of dialectical materialism in his more recent work. It takes as its concrete starting point the most current, systematic elaborations of Žižek's thought, namely Absolute Recoil: Towards A New Foundation Of Dialectical Materialism as well as his magnum opus Less Than Nothing: Hegel and the Shadow of Dialectical Materialism. The contributors provide concrete elaborations of arguments developed within these two works, giving voice to their universal implications. The book also features an afterword by Žižek himself, in which he critically examines the work of Levi Bryant as well as the tradition of object-oriented-ontology on the whole. (shrink)

This article presents the Historical and Dialectical Materialist Method as a possible approach to interpret social reality, and, consequently, the educational reality. The logical construction of this Method, which substantiates the Marxist thought, presents itself as a theoretical (logical instrument) and methodological (guiding pathways) possibility to interpret reality. This methodological perspective is distinguished by the movement of thought through the historical reality of men’s life in society, i.e., it deals with discovering (by the movement of thought) the (...) fundamental laws that define the organizational way that humankind has historically framed its social groups. This instrument of theoretical and practical reflection can be used by educators to analyze the apparent educational reality to fully comprehend and overcome it, turning it into an interpreted and concrete educational reality, and unveiling its varied and contradictory aspects. This movement could lead to more conscious and consequent political choices and the transformation of this reality. (shrink)

The dialectical method, Marx Insisted, was at the basis of his account of society. In 1858, in a letter to Engels, he wrote: In the method of treatment the fact that by mere accident I again glanced through Hegel's Logic has been of great service to me... If there should ever be the time for such work again, I would greatly like to make accessible to the ordinary human intelligence, in two or three printer's sheets, what is rational in (...) the method which Hegel discovered.1 But he never did find the time for this work. As a result, Marx's dialectical method and the ways in which it draws on Hegel's philosophy remain among the most controversial and least well understood aspects of Marx's work. My purpose in this paper is to explain some of the basic presuppositions of this method and to bring out their significance for Marx's theories. I shall do so by focusing critically on G.A. Cohen 's account of Marxism in Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence. In this important and influential work, Cohen contrives to give an account of 2 Marxism in entirely non-dialectical – indeed, in anti-dialectical – terms. By criticising Cohen 's views I will seek to show that the dialectical method is the necessary basis for an adequate theory of history and an indispensable part of Marx's thought. The major purpose of Cohen 's book is to develop and defend a particular interpretation of historical materialism, the Marxist theory of historical development. Cohen claims that his account is an `old-fashioned' and a `traditional' one ; and, indeed, in certain respects it is. For, in contrast to the tendency of much recent Marxist writing, Cohen strongly emphasises the materialistic and deterministic character of Marx's theory of history. He insists that the development of the productive forces is the primary motive force for historical change, and portrays Marxism as a form of technological determinism. However, there are various different forms of materialism, not all of them Marx's. (shrink)

The subject of this study is materialism, understood in the broadest sense of this concept: both as a philosophical doctrine and as a way of life corresponding to a certain worldview position. The aim is to clarify the objective role of this worldview position in various fields of human activity. At the center of the research is the question of the essence of materialistic ideas about the world hiding behind the sensually given reality to man. The study consists of (...) two parts, published in separate articles. The first part is devoted to the origins of the materialistic worldview and the main question of philosophy, and in this, its second part, the question of the philosophical problems of non-classical physics is considered, the root of these problems is revealed, a comparative worldview analysis of the basic concepts of classical and non-classical physics is carried out and the overall result of the research is summarized. The methodology of this research is the principle of materialistic monism, according to which absolutely all phenomena of the human-cognizable world can be based only on something material, "influencing". The general conclusions of this study are as follows: the roots of the materialistic worldview go back to the origins of life, to such a condition of successful vital activity of living beings, which is inherently ideological; this condition, called by the author the Main Question of Life, is the historical forerunner of the Main Question of Philosophy; the worldview position, equivalent to the materialistic solution of the OVF, is inherent in the vital activity of absolutely all living beings; all people in their daily and practical activities are born materialists. In addition, this study clarifies the idea of the essence of materialistic teaching; shows the exclusivity of the materialistic worldview as the only true worldview; provides a refined definition of the concept of matter; proves the need to shift the "center of gravity" of modern materialistic teaching from dialectics to the principle of materialistic monism; formulates the missing requirement for scientific theories to ensure their ideological viability; shows the ideological inconsistency the main ideas of the new, non-classical physics. (shrink)

The question of the Hegelian heritage within the Marxian dialectic is a classic one that is still an open one, after more than a century of fruitful and various inquiry. In order to tackle the issue from a new perspective, we must first distinguish between, on the one hand, the subjective dialectic, or logic of Marxian thought, which is clearly inherited from Hegel, and, on the other hand, the objective dialectic, or logic of reality itself, which Marx arrived at by (...) way of a frontal opposition to his master, even as he took up the latter’s “rational kernel” in order to invert it, substituting for Hegel’s idealist philosophy of creation a materialist conception of production and replacing the logic of negativity by a logic of produ-activity. Thus conceptualized by Marx, the gnoseological dialectic and dialectical materialism interact rationally. This enables us to renew the foundations of a dialectical materialism. Unrelated to stalinist « diamat », such a conception is well equipped to demonstrate its effectiveness for the knowledge and understanding of realities, both in terms of their irreducible material singularity, apprehended according to their constitutive historicity, and as elements of a certain real totality which is in process. (shrink)

This chapter discusses the philosophical importance of Lenin’s thought. It reevaluates Lenin’s philosophical legacy by examining his major and perhaps most controversial philosophical work, Materialism and Empiriocriticism. A sympathetic yet critical assessment of the work offered in this chapter reveals important details about Lenin’s version of Marxism, bringing into light his contributions to philosophical thought, such as the defense of materialism against idealism, the rigorous advocacy of dialectical approach to reality, and the ability to identify and, to (...) some extent, overcome problems of previous philosophy, particularly positivism. This chapter also reconstructs the historical context, in which Lenin’s book was written, and discusses the political and social situation to which it responds. (shrink)

This commentary addresses criticism of Lukács’s early book Tailism and the Dialectic: A Defence of History and Class Consciousness. Two critiques published in Historical Materialism are analysed and alternative interpretations of Lukács’s theory developed. The commentary focuses on Lukács’s theories of class consciousness and his ideas on the social construction of nature.

This essay explores Friedrich Engels’ understanding of, and contribution to, historical materialism through the lens of his military writings. After unpacking the tacit theoretical architecture underpinning some of his encyclopaedia articles on the history of warfare, I move to focus on his analysis of the organization, culture and leadership of the various antagonists involved in the Crimean War (1853-1856). Notwithstanding the fact that Engels often wore his Marxism lightly when writing on military matters, I argue that these essays (...) illuminate a sophisticated understanding of historical materialism that is quite at odds with those all too often repeated criticisms of his thought as a form of mechanical materialism and economic reductionism. Indeed, Engels’ writings on military organization during the Crimean War illuminate his dialectical understanding of the unity of essential and historical aspects of capitalist management; including powerful and nuanced analyses of national, class, ethnic and gendered subjectivities through which organizational cultures were reproduced in an (emerging) capitalist context. I show that while Engels understood that modes of production set parameters within which specific military forms emerged as (historically) necessary structures, he also laid great emphasis on the ways in which these organizations operated according to their own emergent principles and through specific cultures and concrete individuals. I submit that through these writings he made an important contribution to our understanding of military organization, and one that provides valuable historical context through which to understand more recent conflicts over the Crimean peninsula. (shrink)

What is the relationship between the field of science and the philosophy of dialectical materialism in the Soviet Union? Ninety-five per cent of the fears and misgivings expressed by American writers in regard to this subject are quite unwarranted. They have been arrived at, not by any use of the scientific method of carefully examining observable facts, but by accepting the superficialities and distortions of the sensational press, and by making sweeping “deductions” from wholly unverified premises, or from (...) isolated and exceptional instances. Some scientists who would not dream of approaching their own field of specialty in any such manner apparently feel that the complex problem of the relations between science and a certain philosophy within a new society can be so approached. (shrink)