SPGB, Autonomist and Left-Com responses all welcome.
Does Dialectics underpin the entire Marxist method of scientific Socialism and Historical Materialism or can one draw out a Marxism without recourse to this most unproletarian science.
I've mentioned elsewhere my ongoing disillusionment with the mystifications of Modern Marxism (by modern I mean Marxism post Marx's death, once clarification from the guy himself was impossible and everything became disciples and apostles interpreting what the guy probably/definitely meant.)
I'd be very interested to know what view of history you take. Your view on just how mechanical historical development is. How predictable and true to historical laws human groups and societies are.etc
I'll leave asking Anarchists for another time, as I really want to drain the swamp, so to speak, and see if there is actually anything hiding there underneath the putrid mysticism of Leninism and the other assorted Utopian mystics of deterministic historical materialism. I'm fed up of taking sh*t on faith and thinking, well I guess it'll all make sense one day. If I just read this next book (there's always another one) by some obscure theorist of this long forgotten tendency formed out of this long forgotten schism as a result of this long forgotten minor disagreement over some long forgotten remark by some other long forgotten theorist who was a product of yet more...you get the picture.
Much obliged my fine comrades.
p.s - I'm not having a nervous breakdown, I promise.
Dialectics is a method for presentation, not a science. I can say much more on it, but the first mistake many Marxists make is to overstate the significance of the dialectics, referring to it as some secret mystical force without actually knowing how Marx used it.