Re: defining dialectics

[Brian Basgen <brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Kevin,

>Also, (and one can go into more detail here) what are the major distinctions
>between Hegelian dialectics and Marxian?

"My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is
its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life-process of the human brain,
i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of "the Idea,"
he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of
the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal
form of "the Idea." With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing
else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and
translated into forms of thought."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm
  Afterward to the First Edition of Capital

For Hegel's idea, see section 81 of his "Logic Defined and Divided"

> Can someone give a simple example
>of the dialectic process?

  Have a look at The Encyclopedia of Marxism:
   http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/m/a.htm#dialectical-materialism


>
>And a few more questions...
>What is meant by "Historical Materialism"?

  Have a look at The Encyclopedia of Marxism:
   http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/m/a.htm#historical-materialism

  Also, if you would like more works for examples of Historical
Materialism (the German Ideology is the best place to start), let me
know and I'll send you the url for a collection I am currently
working on (a new version of the Marx/Engels Selected Works, built by
subject; the present volume on Historical Materialism specifically. I
can't make a date for when it will be completed, possibly at latest
by the end of this year, but in its present state it has a great deal
of information and so is usable).


>  Do you feel that Engles concept
>of it is not true to what  Marx originally meant

  For all practical purposes, Marx and Engels are two sides of the
same person. They write differently, lead different lives, had
different temperments, etc -- but in accord to theory they were
essentially one in the same. Some try to make a distinction between
them, after Marx died, and Engels continued to write. What they
neglect to mention is that since 1844 Marx and Engels had worked
together on every major project they ever did, sending to one another
pieces of the manuscript in progress for checking/additions. To
suggest Engels was not a Marxist is as absurd as the suggestion that
Marx was not a Marxist.


>And finally.  When one speaks of "Scientific" socialism--what is so
>"scientific" about it?  Some people have told me that when Marx said
>"scientific" he really meant "knowledge based" rather than a "science" as
>defined in the classical sense.
>When I hear the word "Scientific" I have images of any group of people acting
>independantly in the world applying Marx's analysis and drawing the same
>conclusions from that analysis.  This doesn't seem to be the case, however.

  Your idea is correct; Marxism is scientific, which means among other
things that when a group of people work on understanding human
society and have similar data (or better yet, more through (i.e. up
to date) data), they will come to essentially the same results.

  This is not always the case, however, as you know some pretend to be
scientists because they hold their ideas of Marx like a gospel and
apply those ideas to the world around them, thus thinking themselves
scientific.


Regards,

  Brian Basgen

___________________
marxists.org janitor

"In those days, after the defeat of the Paris Commune, history made
slow organisational and educational work the task of the day."

Vladimir Lenin, Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution
  http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/apr/tasks/ch12.htm