>Mine wrote:
>>in any case, a self-identified Marxist would instead use historial
>>materialism. If this methodology has the same connotations with h.m,
then
>>why to substitute h.m with a different name?
>actually, there are good reasons to avoid the terms historical
>materialism
>and dialectical materialism. They aren't Marx's terms.
Really? Marx says in Preface to the French edition of Capital (Tucker
ed, p.301) the following:
"My DIALECTIC METHOD is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its
direct opposite.to hegel, the life process of the human brain, ie the
proces of thiking, 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"
I looked at the index of Tucker, Marx uses the concept "dialectic" in
pp.68-69, 106-25, 301-2...
ops,I forgot to mention Engels' _Letters on historical Materialism_
written to to Joseph Bloch.. You may wish to consider Tucker p.760..
> Marx referred to his "materialist conception of history." More
>importantly, the terms have been much abused, at one point being reduced
>to "histomat" and "diamat" by Stalin's ideologists .
true however If Stalin abused these terms, it has nothing to do with the
conceptual validity of the terms as developed by Marx.
we are dealing with MArx here not Stalin...
>Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Mine
