Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism Puns

I am specifically looking for Marx and/or Engels' works on historical materialism.

And what 3 books/pieces of Engels do you think best explain dialectical and historical materialism?

I know most hardcore marxists are atheists, but still are the two things reconcilable?

Since Marx said that society continuosly evolves, does that mean that history doesn't repeat itself or I am just saying a stupid thing? Thanks for your time!

Sometimes I get the impression that some marxists find the idea of a comunist society almost of secondary importance. Almost as if historical/dialectical materialism is really what they believe in and the outcome of this doctrine just so happens to be a comunist society. I personally haven't studied in depth HM/ DM and I am far away from having understood it. In that case am I still justified in ny support of comunism according to orthodox marxists? Thanks for any feedback.

Looking for an English translation, found a couple online but they weren't all that readable, they both read like unedited google translate

https://www.studyebooks.com/2021/05/abc-of-dialectical-and-historical.html

excerpt:

All man-made cosmic bodies are the products of scientific thought. And as though need not necessarily be unique to earth-dwellers and there may be other beings in the universe who may well be our intellectual superiors, it is natural to Suppose that other cosmic bodies whose origin is so far not clear to us may also be products of thought. Then why not suppose that the Earth with everything there is on it is also a product of thought? One could indeed make such a supposition but would it tally with the evidence of science and experience? Light travels 9, 440, 000, 000 kilometers a year. This distance is called a light-year. The Milky Way—a giant cluster of stars and other bodies, of which the solar system is a part —has a diameter of almost 100, 000 light-years. It moves among other clusters of stars (galaxies) which are vastly removed from it. The part of the universe which scientists can observe with the aid of powerful optical and radio devices has a diameter of 26, 000, 000, 000 light-years. This vast area is puny, compared with all other areas of the universe as yet out of the range of the available means of observation.

I was reading a bit about the tenets of dialectical materialism (DM) and there was something that confused me. I'm not a Marxist and not too well read on Marx so I wanted to ask people who I thought might be. It seems as if some Marxists argue that past historical modes of production were a necessity. If this is so, how could one even morally condemn someone like Columbus, if what he spurred was just part of the inevitable progress towards the final stage of communism. This concept seems to be extremely troubling to me.

Title

Here is the excerpt he uses it in (bold mine):

>An instance in which the relations of production do not correspond to the character of the productive forces, conflict with them, is the economic crises in capitalist countries, where private capitalist ownership of the means of production is in glaring incongruity with the social character of the process of production, with the character of the productive forces. This results in economic crises, which lead to the destruction of productive forces. Furthermore, this incongruity itself constitutes the economic basis of social revolution, the purpose of which IS to destroy the existing relations of production and to create new relations of production corresponding to the character of the productive forces.

>In contrast, an instance in which the relations of production completely correspond to the character of the productive forces is the socialist national economy of the U.S.S.R., where the social ownership of the means of production fully corresponds to the social character of the process of production, and where, because of this, economic crises and the destruction of productive forces are unknown.

Tankie here, popping in because I'm curious of my leftist comrades across the isle in these dark times. I don't just subscribe to Marx's economic critique of capitalism, but Marxist philosophy and sociology. His worldview was rich and scientific. Marx was a staunch materialist and crafted the material conception of history (historical materialism), and he described it using the method of materialist dialectics. These are tools he used to justify his belief in communism and are tools used by ML revolutionaries around the world such as Lenin and Mao. Marx's contribution to sociology alone is still taught in Western classrooms today as one of the 4 fathers of sociology.

I'm curious of your views on materialism, historical and dialectical, and if they have any crossover with ancom theory. If not, what is ancom's philosophy and sociology used to understand the historical development and mechanisms of society?

Hello guys, I've been interested in reading about the intersection between Christianity and Marxism, not just liberation theology, but how some socialist/communism Christians reconcile dialectical and historical materialism with Christianity.

Any papers, books, lectures on youtube to listen to? Thank you!

I've been reading about Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism and they seem to be very logical ways of looking at and analyzing things and the world. I was just wondering if any other aspies have read about it because it really resonates with me.

http://realasshistoryhours.libsyn.com

Also, I will be going into Marx's Capital next week.

I have a basic grasp of both dialectical & historical materialism, however I sometimes have trouble reciting the concepts to myself. This is probably due to the fact that I've only learned what I know about it through videos/people.

Thank you ahead of time!

>This “alienation” (to use a term which will be comprehensible to the philosophers) can, of course, only be abolished given two practical premises. For it to become an “intolerable” power, i.e. a power against which men make a revolution, it must necessarily have rendered the great mass of humanity “propertyless,” and produced, at the same time, the contradiction of an existing world of wealth and culture, both of which conditions presuppose a great increase in productive power, a high degree of its development. And, on the other hand, this development of productive forces (which itself implies the actual empirical existence of men in their world-historical, instead of local, being) is an absolutely necessary practical premise because without it want is merely made general, and with destitution the struggle for necessities and all the old filthy business would necessarily be reproduced; and furthermore, because only with this universal development of productive forces is a universal intercourse between men established, which produces in all nations simultaneously the phenomenon of the “propertyless” mass (universal competition), makes each nation dependent on the revolutions of the others, and finally has put world-historical, empirically universal individuals in place of local ones. Without this, (1) communism could only exist as a local event; (2) the forces of intercourse themselves could not have developed as universal, hence intolerable powers: they would have remained home-bred conditions surrounded by superstition; and (3) each extension of intercourse would abolish local communism. Empirically, communism is only possible as the act of the dominant peoples “all at once” and simultaneously, which presupposes the universal development of productive forces and the world intercourse bound up with communism. Moreover, the mass of propertyless workers – the utterly precarious position of labour – power on a mass scale cut off from capital or from even a limited satisfaction and, therefore, no longer merely temporarily deprived of work itself as a secure source of life – presupposes the world market through competition. The proletariat can thus only exist world-historically, just as communism, its activity, can only have a “world-historical” existence. World-historical existence of individuals means existence of individuals which is directly linked up with world history.

from Critique of the German ideology.

Just asking about theory, not the historical relationship between Marxist and anarchist groups

Also wish I could edit the title to include our female, trans, non-identifying, etc comrades

I was talking to one of my friends about Marxist philosophy and they said Stalin didn't understand materialism. I have other friends who have told me not to read Stalin's book Dialectical and Historical Materialism. Is this true and if so can you give me your thoughts/critiques on Stalin's philosophy.

Title is mostly self-explanatory. Most of my exposure to Communism, Marxism, and Socialism has been through the likes of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Marcuse, all of which in some way sympathetic or condone dialectical/historical materialism. Despite this, I am aware that there are socialists and branches of socialism that do not endorse Marx’s vision of dialectical/historical materialism. Who are some of these philosophers, and which of their readings should I look into?

Dialectical materialism: https://archive.org/details/DialecticalMaterialismMarxEngelsLenin (I just scanned this)

Historical materialism: https://b-ok.cc/book/855166/1d2d74 (been online for a while)

I'm new to reading Marx and the most confusing part of it is dialectical materialism. Not the idea of it but how it fits within Marxism. I've read some articles and different pieces on it from various Marxists but it seems scattered. Some say that dialectical materialism has nothing to do with Marx and Engels and was made by other authors, some say Engels misread Marx and attributed his own ideas to Marx in anti duhring, some say that dialectical materialism is the core of Marxism. What compounds this confusion is historical materialism which again has differing views such as it being the only part Marx and Engels adhered to vs it being the historical application of dialectical materialism. So can anyone could help clarify this and/or point to some reading?

Tankie here, popping in because I'm curious of my leftist comrades across the isle in these dark times. I don't just subscribe to Marx's economic critique of capitalism, but Marxist philosophy and sociology. His worldview was rich and scientific. Marx was a staunch materialist and crafted the material conception of history (historical materialism), and he described it using the method of materialist dialectics. These are tools he used to justify his belief in communism and are tools used by ML revolutionaries around the world such as Lenin and Mao. Marx's contribution to sociology alone is still taught in Western classrooms today as one of the 4 fathers of sociology.

I'm curious of your views on materialism, historical and dialectical, and if they have any crossover with ancom theory. If not, what is ancom's philosophy and sociology used to understand the historical development and mechanisms of society?

What is the difference between dialectical/historical materialism found in Marxism and common scientific materialism or physicalism?