GRETCHEN L.

GONZAGA DSOC 2015

A Discussion Paper of Paul Mattick, Jr.’s Marx’s Dialectic

Mattick, Jr.'s paper and Lenin suggested that Hegel's meaning of dialectic is vital in
understanding Marx's dialectic or his Capital. It also seems that Hegel's dialectics is the reference of
Marx's Grundrisse, an unfinished manuscript of Marx. The latter document is a great way of
understanding the Capital. In other words, if you want to study Capital, you have to find out first
Marx's method and its relation to Hegel's. Otherwise, one might misinterpret it which could be
dangerous (fascism, authoritarianism, etc).

Marx was once a student of Hegel. This is a great advantage for him to critic and borrow
Hegel's concept of dialectics. Both brilliant men believed in one thing; historical and other events
happened because of the clashing or conflict of two opposing forces. However, Marx himself
mentioned that his dialectic is totally different and opposite of Hegel's. Hegelian dialectics is
focused on human ideas or logic which made him an idealist for maybe because he was a
philosopher. Meanwhile, Marx’s dialectics is about the material world of production and economic
activities. Mattick said:

"…his text employs not a logic of being or even a logic of concepts, but an image of
the theoretical analysis and synthesis of empirical data."

Marx is a realist and faithful to empirical data through the combination of analysis and
synthesis. For him, conflict is due to material needs. Through class struggle and revolution, these
will take a society from the exploitation of capitalism to social and economic equality and freedom.
But does revolution really needed? Could we not attain equality and freedom in a peaceful way?

However, Mattick, Jr. argued that Marx's dialectic is only a critic of ideology unlike to what
other scholars have claimed. His journey to construct a concrete general theory about social life had
brought us to dialectic materialism.

Furthermore, Philippines is home of the biggest shopping malls in the world owned by
Henry Sy, Sr. Contractualization is widespread and it enables capitalists like him to exploit
employees by paying them less for jobs, stunt economic development, and deprived the interests of
all Filipinos. However, business leaders and groups are claiming that contractualization is good for
the workers and the country. This is because capitalists can increase their profits, hire more
employees, contribute to the economy, and benefit all Filipinos. Because of these absurd reasons,
the president has crafted an executive order to at least alleviate the problem. Although he failed to
ban totally contractualization, he is working on for a long-term solution that would strengthen
laborer's right to security of tenure.

Because the government stepped back from their original plan in ending contractualization,
it would take a long time before Filipinos could attain equal rights and freedom. I am not sure
anymore if the president will continue to fight the oligarchs. But if you were in his place, which one
will you choose, ending jobs or ending contractualization?