![]() ![]() ![]() The object of dialectical materialism is the theory of the history of scientific production. While dialectical materialism is defined as a Marxist philosophy, it has its own particular object of production and that is the structure and functioning of the process of thought. It studies the different modes of production and social formation, their structure, constitution and functioning, and the forms of transition from one social formation to another through an historical perspective. Poulantzas explains that historical materialism is the science of history. Therefore, it is important to explore the discussion on historical materialism and dialectical materialism made by Nicos Poulantzas because it sheds light on an understanding and distinction between interpretations of both Marxist philosophy and method. It consists in going beyond reality to understand and analyse the social whole through a materialist analysis. In Marxist terms, dialectics is a method that translates a way of thinking about reality. For Marx, consciousness is first and foremost determined by material conditions that develop dialectically throughout human history. Thus, Fine and Saad-Filho argue that the relationship between dialectics and history became the cornerstone of Marx’s method. Feuerbach’s materialist analysis is ahistorical and non-dialectical, while Marx believed that human consciousness can only be understood in relation to historical, social and material circumstances. For that reason, Marx extended Feuerbach’s materialist philosophy beyond religion to all the other areas of society. For him, in general humans seek God or religion, to satisfy an emotional need. In contrast, Feuerbach believed that human need determines consciousness. Fine and Saad-Filho explain that Hegelians “were idealists, believing that theoretical concepts can legitimately be developed more or less independently of material reality.” The Hegelians also believed that “intellectual progress explains the advance of government, culture and the other forms of social life”. In the first decades of the nineteenth century, philosophy was dominated by Hegel and his followers. In his early career, Marx identified himself with the group of Young Hegelians (who were more radical) rather than with in the Old Hegelians (considered more reactionary), but the influence of Feuerbach’s materialism led Marx to move away from the Young Hegelians who believed that human intellectual development still had far to advance. Marx was influenced by Hegel and Feuerbach. In this regard, Derek Sayer (1979) considers that Marx’s analysis is a method of enquiry that analyses the intrinsic relations of capitalism. Musto further explains that, in Grundrisse, Marx aimed to clarify the guiding principles for theorising the problem and contradictions of capitalism. According to Marcello Musto, it contributes to understanding Marx’s thought as a whole and Capital in particular. Grundrisse is an introductory draft of Marx’s Critique of Political Economy and a preparatory work for Capital. The discussion of Marx’s method traces back to his early writings of the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, which comprises the initial breakthrough in the field of political economy from 1843 to the composition of Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy, written between 18. Marx’s method of political economy offers a critique of the political economy of capitalism in relation to its historical, social and material foundations, and this contributes to understanding and explaining the nature and functioning of capitalism, as well as the root causes of social and economic inequalities and its different forms of (re)production in industrialised capitalist societies, as Ben Fine and Alfredo Saad-Filho explain. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |