Is there a diff between dialectical materialism and historical materialism

[Jacob Cliff]

And If there is can you give explanations of what they are?

[Zealot]

Historical materialism is dialectical in the Marxist tradition but dialectical materialism doesn't necessarily have to be applied exclusively to history.

[newdayrising]

To make a long story short, historical materialism is Marxism while dialectical materialism is the Stalinist theory of everything.

[Art Vandelay]

To make a long story short, historical materialism is Marxism while dialectical materialism is the Stalinist theory of everything.

So both Trotsky and Engels were Stalinists? If you don't know the answer to the question posted in learning, then don't respond.

[motion denied]

Diamat is most certainly stalinoid hogwash. And yeah, Engels' fundamentals laws of dialectics are problematic.


OP, I have yet to read any Marx's reference to historical or dialectical materialism. I've seen the "materialist conception of history" and brief allusions to a certain dialectical method in the critique of political economy (not the general [dialectical] theory of everything existing). This was popularized by the II International. Someone in an older thread said "historical materialism" is from Franz Mehring (he did write a piece on it in the 1870s iirc).

My beef is corroborated by the first response. If Marx's "method" is just something ready-made that we apply to reality, where's the "ideal appropriation of the concrete"?

[newdayrising]

9mm, the term "Dialectical Materialism" was indeed used by Engels among other people, not to mention "materialist dialectics", but the particular school of thought named after it was developed in the USSR in the 1930's as the official interpretation of Marxism.
How it's been used by Trotsky I don't know, but it doesn't disprove anything I said. Did Trotsky mean the same as the offical soviet "Diamat", which is most likely what the OP was refering to? Even if he did, I never said Stalinists had the monopoly on it. I've seen self proclaimed trotskyists use the term "marxism-leninism", but it doesn't change the fact that for most purposes it's synonimous with stalinism.

[Creative Destruction]

Stalinists consider dialectical materialism to be a holistic method of looking at everything through a dialectical lens. Historical materialism, to them, is an offshoot of dialectical materialism; a kind of materialism that is applied to history and society. I don't think I would label dialectical materialism as "Stalinist," though. Not in the same sense that Socialism in One Country is uniquely Stalinist. He may have brought to the fore the term, but the ideas were not his own. They were basically a compendium of Lenin's thoughts (http://marx2mao.net/Stalin/DHM38.html), who was basically copying and, to a less extent, elaborating on Engels.

Marx never developed a theory of 'everything.' That is, an inverse (to Hegel) dialectical method that looks at things like biology, chemistry and what not. Engels is the one who attempted that -- and is the cue that Stalin takes -- and it wasn't altogether successful, I don't think. On the surface, there are natural processes that you could say have a dialectical character (storm fronts could be an example, but even that is oversimplifying, or chemistry, where, as quoted from Breaking Bad, is the "science of change") but that's a rather presumptuous argument to make, especially if you're not trained in that science and know all the ins-and-outs of the processes. As such, dialectical materialism seems to misapply what is basically a social and economic theory (Marx's dialectic) to things that diamats don't actually understand in-depth. The people who use the method are way too ambitious about it. Ultimately, I think the standpoint led to completely useless dreck like Lysenkoism.

[G4b3n]

To make a long story short, historical materialism is Marxism while dialectical materialism is the Stalinist theory of everything.

That could not be anymore incorrect. Stalin did not invent dialectical materialism, he just applied it poorly through a delusional pseudo-Marxist warped vision in a context that was doomed before he even started.

Historical materialism is dialectical materialism applied to the study of history. Though it may not necessarily be dialectical, it could still be historical materialism if the principles of materialism are applied to the understanding.

[newdayrising]

Yes it could be "more incorrect" if it was indeed incorrect. It's not incorrect though.

As I said, there was certainly "materialist dialectics" in Marx.
But the actual school of thought, the method that was baptized "Dialectical Materialism", as we know it today, was indeed formulated in the USSR in the 1930's under Stalin as the official interpretation of Marxism.

Before that it had been used as a term by Plekhanov for instance, but it didn't really mean the same thing. Engels talked about a "materialist dialectic" and Marx never used this term in any way as far as I know.
One can use the term meaning Marx's materialist dialectics. I have no problem with that. But the ideology called Dialectical Materialism was a Stalinist creation.


That could not be anymore incorrect. Stalin did not invent dialectical materialism, he just applied it poorly through a delusional pseudo-Marxist warped vision in a context that was doomed before he even started.

Historical materialism is dialectical materialism applied to the study of history. Though it may not necessarily be dialectical, it could still be historical materialism if the principles of materialism are applied to the understanding.

[Thirsty Crow]

And If there is can you give explanations of what they are?
Yes, there is.
Historical materialism is a particular paradigm of studying social life and the changes occuring there, whereas dialectical materialism is a would be theory of everything based on the notion of universal laws of motion governing every single thing.


So both Trotsky and Engels were Stalinists? If you don't know the answer to the question posted in learning, then don't respond.
This is correct. The source of the grand philosophical explanation of everything is Engels.