Difference between historical and dialectical materialism

[Skammunist]

Ok, so I know that Marx's dialectics differed from Hegel's in that Hegel believed that change (thesis, antithesis, synthesis) comes from ideals, or ideas. Marx believed that change comes from material conditions, in the form of the means of production as well as the relations of production.

From what I understand, historical materialism is the concept where dialectics are applied to history. From feudalism, to capitalism, to socialism, and so on. So what is the difference from dialectical materialism exactly? Is it just the appliance of dialectics to material conditions?

[ZeroNowhere]

Ok, so I know that Marx's dialectics differed from Hegel's in that Hegel believed that change (thesis, antithesis, synthesis) comes from ideals, or ideas. Marx believed that change comes from material conditions, in the form of the means of production as well as the relations of production.This is a bit of a simplification, but yes, Marx did see thought as arising from and gaining its sense from social practice and interaction with the world, rather than having autonomous existence in God. Marx, like Hegel, was concerned with the relationship between subject and object, and with bridging the division between the two opposites, and while Hegel only seemed to manage this through positing essentially that the world was the thought of God (and hence what is objective is in fact subjective as well), Marx found this unity in material practice and the interaction of subject and object. Insofar as the unity of subject and object to some degree is necessary for knowledge (as if they are to absolutely exclude each other, then the subject only has impressions of the world but cannot know anything about the actual world), expressed in the early Marx's view of knowledge as an essential power and Engels' later emphasis on practice as giving sense to knowledge.


From what I understand, historical materialism is the concept where dialectics are applied to history.That's more or less accurate, I suppose.


So what is the difference from dialectical materialism exactly? Is it just the appliance of dialectics to material conditions?I think that's more or less it, yes. While 'dialectical materialism' was a term which I believe postdates Marx and Engels, and I don't particularly endorse most of what has taken the name since, it's not a wholly inappropriate name per se. The materialist conception of history is to a large part the understanding of history in the light of materialist dialectic, which in a way is more or less just another way of saying that it's seeing history in the light of Marxist materialism, with its basis in motion and the internal nature of relations to the individual.

[Sixiang]

ZeroNowhere's info is right. I feel like adding a little bit, though.

There's also this emphasis on contradictions and antagonisms between opposing forces (the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, within the classes, and practically everything else). And how the clashing between these forces leads to qualitative changes.

There's other stuff that can be inferred from it or expounded upon. All in all, it can get kind of convoluted. I think that it can be easier to understand DM and HM as you also study other Marxist concepts.

If you want to know more about historical materialism, I recommend reading Marx's work The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. It's a perfect example of a materialist outlook on history. And Marx's other writings on France and the Paris Commune are good, too.