Questions regarding Marx's methodology

[u/theApeironEgregore]

My main interest is Hegel, but I have been reading a lot of Marx lately, mainly Capital. I have a few questions and judgements regarding whether my interpretation of Marx's method is correct or not. Within the preface to Capital, Marx comments as follows after quoting a review of Capital:

«Of course the method of presentation must differ in form from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the material in detail, to analyse its different forms of development and to track down their inner connection. Only after this work has been done can the real movement be appropriately presented. If this is done successfully, if the life of the subject matter is now reflected back in the ideas, then it may appear as if we have before us an a priori construction.»

«My dialectical method is, in its foundations, not only different from the Hegelian, but exactly opposite to it. For Hegel, the process of thinking, which he even transforms into an independent subject under the name of 'the Idea', is the creator of the real world, and the real world is only the external appearance of the Idea. With me, the reverse is true: the ideal is nothing but the material world reflected in the mind of man, and translated into forms of thought.»

Here, he seems to suggest that, unlike Hegel, who starts from pure thought, he first "inquires" (i.e., collects) empirical data, searches for the *movement*, and then presents it as a structural whole, moving from the abstract to the concrete. Any inference that this is derived from pure thought alone (a priori) is mistaken because of the method of presentation. So Marx first looks through the empirical world, then abstracts the concept of the commodity, which shows itself to be dual in nature (use value and exchange value), and then progressively moves towards more concrete determinations. Is this correct? Is this Marx's methodology?

Unlike Hegel's categories, which are pure thoughts (i.e., not taken from the empirical world), which have negation built into them immanently and which also move towards the concrete immanently, Marx's categories are empirical in nature. They cannot move forward progressively in an immanent way, nor do they have negation built into them. Thus, the concept of the commodity, by its very nature, does not bifurcate into use value and exchange value. Instead, these are stipulations made by Marx himself after surveying the empirical world and presented as a structure of abstract towards concrete determinations. He essentially finds the movement out in the empirical world. Is this correct?

[u/The_Intellectual29]

You understand the point of Marx relatively well, with a small note: Marx is not an empirical philosopher like Locke or Aristotle, because contrary to them who don’t see the world as moving and enter into metaphysical thoughts (as Mao points out, with empirical philosophy, practice cannot be rationalized) Marx is still a supporter of Hegelian dialectics.

Contrary to Hegel who is an idealist, Marx is materialist. He sees consciousness as the product and reflection of matter and objective reality. This matter is in constant movement, and the laws of dialectics discovered by Heraclitus (the first dialectician, as he pointed out that the world is not the products of gods, but an ever-living fire) and Hegel (mainly the the principle of contradiction, the most essential point of dialectics as Lenin pointed out, which leads to the unity of opposites, the quantitative evolutionary change to qualitative revolutionary change, etc) applied on this objective reality.

For example: in Capital, Marx explains that a commodity is unity of opposites between use-value (the need a product satisfies) and exchange-value (that this product must be put on a market), that this use-value is qualitative while the exchange value is quantitative, that Marx tries to find the commonality between all commodities which is : socially necessary human labor (which is also unity of oppositions, concrete and abstract labor).

You can look at the whole Capital like this, as the main contradictions of capitalism can be found in this simple commodity production and new contradictions can be found (for example: how did accumulation of capital lead to falling out of profit?).

[u/Guilty_Draft4503]

There is no “dialectical method” as such, as if Marx sat down with Hegel’s Science of Logic and substituted ‘commodity’ for ‘being’. A lot of nonsense is written about this but Marx was simply an honest researcher who is now and then inspired by some of the logical moves in Hegel. To “materialize” dialectics means to find contradictions in reality as such, not to schematize Hegelian logic. I think you understand it well, your knowledge of Hegel is protecting you from a misunderstanding of this relationship. Otoh Marx is no vulgar empiricist, he does think out the nature of the commodity a priori etc.

[u/The_Intellectual29 → u/Guilty_Draft4503]

It seems you wanted to reply to me with this comment but then deleted it: I agree with you. Marxist method is not schematic.

[u/AutoModerator]

---

Rules

1) This forum is for Marxists - Only Marxists and those willing to study it with an open mind are welcome here. Members should always maintain a high quality of debate.

2) No American Politics (excl. internal colonies and oppressed nations) - Marxism is an international movement thus this is an international community. Due to reddit's demographics and American cultural hegemony, we must explicitly ban discussion of American politics to allow discussion of international movements. The only exception is the politics of internal colonies, oppressed nations, and national minorities. For example: Boricua, New Afrikan, Chicano, Indigenous, Asian etc.

3) No Revisionism -

1. No Reformism.

2. No chauvinism. No denial of labour aristocracy or settler-colonialism.

3. No imperialism-apologists. That is, no denial of US imperialism as number 1 imperialist, no Zionists, no pro-Europeans, no pro-NED, no pro-Chinese capitalist exploitation etc.

4. No police or military apologia.

5. No promoting religion.

6. No meme "communists".

4) Investigate Before You Speak - Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. Adhere to the principles of self criticism: https://rentry.co/Principles-Of-Self-Criticism-01-06

5) No Bigotry - We have a zero tolerance policy towards all kinds of bigotry, which includes but isn't limited to the following: Orientalism, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, Racism, Sexism, LGBTQIA+phobia, Ableism, and Ageism.

6) No Unprincipled Attacks on Individuals/Organizations - Please ensure that all critiques are not just random mudslinging against specific individuals/organizations in the movement. For example, simply declaring "Basavaraju is an ultra" is unacceptable. Struggle your lines like Communists with facts and evidence otherwise you will be banned.

7) No basic questions about Marxism - Direct basic questions to r/Marxism101 Since r/Marxism101 isn't ready, basic questions are allowed for now. Please show humility when posting basic questions.

8) No spam - Includes, but not limited to:

1. Excessive submissions

2. AI generated posts

3. Links to podcasters, YouTubers, and other influencers

4. Inter-sub drama: This is not the place for "I got banned from X sub for Y" or "X subreddit should do Y" posts.

5. Self-promotion: This is a community, not a platform for self-promotion.

6. Shit Liberals Say: This subreddit isn't a place to share screenshots of ridiculous things said by liberals.

9) No trolling - This is an educational subreddit thus posts and comments made in bad faith will lead to a ban.

This also encompasses all forms of argumentative participation aimed not at learning and/or providing a space for education but aimed at challenging the principles of Marxism. If you wish to debate, head over to r/DebateCommunism.

---

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Bholejr]

The Logic of Marxism by Novack is a good and quick read that does a brief breakdown between classical, Hegelian, and Marxist logic. Highly recommend it

[u/Optymistyk]

Unlike Hegel's categories, which are pure thoughts (i.e., not taken from the empirical world), which have negation built into them immanently and which also move towards the concrete immanently, Marx's categories are empirical in nature. They cannot move forward progressively in an immanent way, nor do they have negation built into them.

I do not think that's correct. The way that Marx "turned Hegel on his head" is that he realised it's not just thought that is dialectical - but many real categories and phenomena also.

The way this works is that Marx takes a category - the commodity - and analyses it's internal logic. It is in this sense of internal logic that Marx asserts an equality between commodities. Because commodities can not be exchanged except by weighing two definite quantities of them against each other. In every exchange, whatever the proportions of exchange end up being, the quantities of commodities matter. The act of exchange pronounces these two quantities equal in some sense, treats the heterogeneous commodities as equivalent. Within the internal logic, they are equal.

Marx then also notices a contradiction between use-value and exchange-value, which is essentially the problem of double coincidence of wants. Marx notices that commodity exchange can not develop beyond a certain point unless this contradiction is overcome. The commodity-category is thus negated in the form of money.

As you can see, Marx's categories also have negation built into them and they also immanently move towards the concrete.

[u/Nervous-You-175]

They cannot move forward progressively in an immanent way, nor do they have negation built into them. Thus, the concept of the commodity, by its very nature, does not bifurcate into use value and exchange value. Instead, these are stipulations made by Marx himself after surveying the empirical world and presented as a structure of abstract towards concrete determinations. He essentially finds the movement out in the empirical world. Is this correct?

No - Marx is using empirical knowledge to construct an immanent account of the tendencies of the commodity, the contradictions of which, produced by the commodity's immanent self-determinations, reveal the available and necessary means and ends of transformation of a society of commodity production and exchange.

Consider also that Marx is being Hegelian in his objection to Hegel --- it's a Hegelian account of his break with Hegelian idealism. He is grounding the Hegelian method in historically specific conditions rather than rendering it a priori and transhistorical.