Well, no -- he "coquetted" with these words (and only in a few places -- why not in every chapter?). This is not a ringing endorsement of that 'mighty' thinker. This he said after putting his praise for Hegel in the past tense, and after quoting a long passage from a reviewer in which no Hegelian terms are to be found, which Marx described as the 'dialectic method'.
I've explained to you why this was in the past tense several times: Marx is talking about a period of time that had since passed, in which it had become fashionable to slag off Hegel, and he is talking about a book that he wrote during that period. This is very, very simple. He 'even coquetted' with Hegelian terms, so sure was he of the merits of studying, learning and critqueing him. You ask "why not in every chapter"? Rosa, have you actually read Capital? Have you read volumes two and three? References to Hegel crop up throughout the text of each book, either explicitly ort implicitly. Do I have to list page numbers for you?
The passage from the critic, "in which no Hegelian terms are to be found", is clearly presented as an example of someone describing dialectical procedure without realising it: "Whilst the writer pictures what he takes to be actually my method, in this striking and [as far as concerns my own application of it] generous way, what else is he picturing but the dialectic method?" The point being made is that the critic is describing Marx's method comparatively accurately, and in so doing he is, according to Marx, describing "the dialectical method."
Now, according to you, because a dialectic can (allegedly) only be Hegelian or Hegelian influenced (you've defined neither) if it uses Hegelian catch phrases (which Hegel woudl himself dispute), the fact that this critic describes dialectical method without employing such buzz words means that it cannot be Hegelian or Hegelian influenced. This despite the strikingly obvious fact that this guy is pictured as "picturing...the dialectic method" without realising it. The simple point being made (as should be extremely obvious to anyone who isn't engaged in a deliberate misreading of an inconvenient truth found within what seems to them a religious text[) here is that the critic is describing a dialectic that is strikingly similar to Hegel's own, albeit 'materialist' rather than 'idealist.' As is abundantly clear from that section of text itself, and from the rest of the text.
So, once more, you can only make your theory work if you ignore his actual words.
Now that's kind of ironic, isn;t it
My theory has the merit of not doing that.
YEAH!
Now, please do reply to my first question.
Done it, if this was it:...
Nope, reading skills are clearly not one of your virtues (although we know that already from the above): I'm asking you to define what a Hegelian dialectic is, and what you think Marx's dialectic to be. Someone who can become as animated as yourself about these issues must be able to summarise them clearly. As it now stands, your complaining about the poison of Hegelianism without explaining what's bad about it, and you're talking about Marx's 'dialectical method' whist shouting about how un-dialectical it is. Explain what you mean by these terms. "The only good thing about Hegel is he dropped dead" is a fairly childish response.
What it says: Historical Materialism without the Hegel.
So what's that then? Don't point me to books; if you've read these books and assimilated them you shoudl be able to explain to us yourself. What is "Historical Materialism without the Hegel"?
you're certainly managing to reject dialectics, the law of non-contradiction and the thoroughly bourgeois notion of coherency