So why did Marx bring Hagel into it if it presented these difficulties? Mises suggested that Marx decided to elaborate on the Hegelian dialectic because of Hegelianism's prestige in Germany and because he was afraid to deviate from it radically. Paradoxically, it turns out that dialectical materialism is a product of the misuse of the dialectical method itself. He stopped at the stage of antithesis, borrowed the Hegelian dialectic, and called it a new philosophical concept. But the crux of the issue is that Marx did not synthesize at all.
Ludwig von Mises noticed this, and stated that "No compromise is possible between this Hegelian idealism and any kind of materialism." The history of philosophical thoughts shows that attempts to reconcile idealism and materialism have already been undertaken, for example, by some schools of dualism and will continue in the future. However, Marx was unable to apply the third component of dialectic, since the result turned out to be just more materialism. As a result of the third stage of the triad-synthesis-the birth of a new thesis was expected, since it is assumed that synthesis will resolve the contradiction and lead to the creation of a new paradigm. In other words, Hegel's idealism could be considered the thesis, and Marx's materialism, which he borrowed from Feuerbach, was the antithesis. On the contrary, Marx was an adherent of materialism, and his disagreement with Hegel's idealism had to be resolved dialectically. Concerning one of the main questions of philosophy-what is primary, matter or idea?-Hegel was a representative of idealism, and his philosophy was better described as dialectical idealism. He suggested a path of arriving at the truth that has a triadic structure: a particular phenomenon (thesis) is manifested within its contradictory aspect (antithesis), which requires a resolution (synthesis) that negates their logical opposition. Still, we will rely on Hegel's version, as he authored three laws of dialectic: the unity and conflict of opposites, the mutual transformation of quantity into quality, and the negation of the negation. He wrote, “The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord the steam-mill society with the industrial capitalist.” Mises summarizes Marx's view as follows: “These forces are the driving power producing all historical facts and changes.”ĭialectic has a long history and different interpretations. In fact, properly viewed through the lens of class struggle, history would naturally subsume those other ways of seeing the world and illuminate the context in which they unfolded, particularly when it came to technological innovation, which Marx thought would ultimately determine the struggle of the age. He believed that seeing history as the history of class struggle had better explanatory power than viewing it through other lenses, such as the history of ideas, technological innovations, or military conflicts. For example, the class struggles between slaves and their masters, between feudal lords and their subjects, and-in his day-the class struggle between capitalists and their workers.
#Marxian dialectic series
Marx theorized that human history is best viewed as a series of class struggles between social forces that have contradictory interests. In the Marxian context, it often involves showing why the status quo was always inevitable, and has proceeded according to Marxist economic "science." It is, simply put, a specific way of using historical events to illustrate why the world is the way it is. We could see the enormous difference between the theory and the reality, and we ridiculed Marx's dialectic, as it was perceived to explain everything and nothing simultaneously.īut what is "dialectic," anyway? Antony Sammeroff had an excellent article on the subject of dialectical materialism and Mises's critique of it.
For example, the introduction of the New Economic Policy (NEP) after war communism was dialectic the conclusion of the nonaggression pact with Nazi Germany after many years of mutual dislike and criticism was dialectic even the chronic lag of the Soviet economy in providing essential goods also found dialectical justification.Įventually, however, the word "dialectic" became a subject of jokes for those of us living under Marxist regimes. Any changes in the economic, social, foreign, or military policies of the Soviet Union were considered in their natural movement and rationalized by the materialist dialectic.
Listen to the Audio Mises Wire version of this article.ĭialectic! What a powerful concept that explains everything and nothing at the same time in the Soviet reality.
0 kommentar(er)
