Abstract
This chapter traces out the origins of the Engels debate. It goes back to the earlier critical readings of Hegel. It proposes that before Engels’ dialectics was singled out and attacked by what is sometimes termed ‘Western Marxism’, there was a Hegel(-Marx) debate that clustered largely around the problematic relation between logic and reality (nature/spirit) and a crucial component of it (contradiction). Anyone (including Marx) who claimed Hegel’s dialectics, critically or otherwise, faced the same charges brought against Hegel. Later on, Russian, German and Austrian socialists jointly shaped a debate and voiced various opinions from a wholesale rejection to a full approval of dialectics. As the chronicle of the debate testifies, there was neither an East-West division that can clearly demarcate one single Marxism, ‘Western’ or ‘Eastern’, as an integrated tradition, nor a straight line between Engels and Stalin, linking both figures by immediate causality.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Note here that the most crucial detail on this line is mistranslated in the English edition. Lukács speaks of the application of method to the knowledge of nature (Erkenntnis der Natur), not to nature alone. The footnote appears in the 1919 essay ‘What is Orthodox Marxism?’ that was slightly revised for the 1923 book. The present author does not have access to the original version. In any case, the controversy breaks out with the publication of History and Class Consciousness.
- 2.
- 3.
A typical example that empirically falsifies both epithets is the case of first generation MEGA1 editor Karl Schmückle who prepared Marx’s Economic-Philosophical Manuscripts for publication. Cf. Kangal (2018). Calling ‘Western Marxists’ ‘authors from North America and Western Europe’ does not make van der Linden’s case either. I ignore here the issues of race (white) and gender (male).
- 4.
Commenting on the mathematical parts in Anti-Dühring , H.W. Fabian (1975, p. 628) wrote to Marx in 1880 that he can hardly make sense of Marx’s ‘mode of presentation’ with regard to ‘the dialectical method’, even less so when it comes to Engels’ remarks on the square root of negative one. Contra Engels, Fabian wrote that minus one, let alone the square root of it, is a ‘logical inexistence’ (logisches Unding). That Fabian went behind Engels’ back had provoked the latter. As he wrote to Kautsky in 1884, Fabian ‘went for my dialectical approach to mathematics and complained to Marx that I had defamed \( \sqrt{-1} \)’. Cf. Engels (1995a, p. 191; 1995b, p. 295; 1995c, p. 124). In the second preface to Anti-Dühring , he was more generous and called Fabian rather modestly ‘an unrecognized great mathematician’. Cf. Engels (1988, p. 494). H.M. Hyndman (1911, pp. 248, 231, 256) referred to Marx as ‘an extraordinary combination of qualities’ and ‘the Aristotle of the Nineteenth Century’, while he called Engels less generously ‘our Teutonic “Grand Llama of the Regent’s Park Road” … by reason of the secluded life he led and the servile deference he exacted’, not to mention his ‘overbearing character and outrageous rudeness’. Although he never met or spoke to Engels, he had a ‘most unfavourable view of his character … he was exacting, suspicious, jealous, and not disinclined to give full weight to the exchange value of his ready cash in his relations with those whom he helped’.
- 5.
For instance, Ernst Untermann (1910, p. xxi) wrote that ‘Marx’s many-sidedness is based on the speciality of social sciences in political-economic aspect, while Dietzgen’s speciality is the universality of thought and nature’. Untermann (1910, p. xxiii) calls ‘Marx, Engels and Kautsky’ ‘our teachers in the historical-economic area’. With regard to Engels’ remarks on his natural scientific studies in the 1885 preface to Anti-Dühring , Untermann (1910, p. 8) emphasizes that Engels did not finalize his natural scientific studies. Contrary to the well-established ‘dialectics of society’ (Gesellschaftsdialektik), ‘a monist world-dialectics and theory of knowledge’ was missing in the Marxist literature (Untermann 1910, p. 10), a problem which was ‘not solved completely by Marx and Engels’ (Untermann 1910, p. 24). ‘Engels’ scheme of a conscious and unconscious side of nature-dialectics is more metaphysical rather than materialist’ (Untermann 1910, p. 38). Cf. Engels (1988, p. 494). Regarding Dietzgen’s fame in the British working-class associations, cf. Macintyre (1986, pp. 129–140), Rée (1984, pp. 31–45). Popularization of Engels in Britain owes perhaps a great deal to the establishment of The Engels Society under J. B. S. Haldane, J. D. Bernal and Maurice Cornforth’s influence. Cf. The Engels Society (1949a, b). Also note that the term ‘dialectical materialism’ probably originates from Dietzgen. Cf. Dietzgen (1920, p. 203).
- 6.
Also Kautsky (1927, p. 26) speaks of ‘the dialectical or genetic method’, but he, unlike Trendelenburg, takes them to be synonyms, not opposites.
- 7.
Chinese scholar Zhou Lindong (2008, pp. 2–4) speculates that Engels’ title Naturdialektik was probably inspired by Dühring’s Natürliche Dialektik, although he does not seem to be aware of the passages just cited. Besides the fact that Dühring did not intend to develop a dialectical method applicable specifically to nature, Zhou seems to get lost in translation, for Natürliche Dialektik and Naturdialektik are both translated into Chinese as ziranbianzhengfa (dialectics of nature), which ignores the distinction between adjective (natural) and noun (nature). However, he points out the two different formulations Naturdialektik and Dialektik der Natur, even if he is not able to explain why we came to have these quite similar, if unidentical, expressions in the first place.
- 8.
- 9.
- 10.
- 11.
Bernstein (1892) had taken this novelty in Lange into account. However, it is not clear whether Bernstein (1921, pp., 44, 53–4, 33, 35) saw an interconnection between probability and weak determinism in contradistinction to the ‘strict determinism’ of ‘philosophical or nature-scientific materialism’ which he criticized in the ‘Marxist conception of history’.
- 12.
Such formulations as ‘development in opposites’ can be found in his Materialism book, though they are discussed always separately from the question of contradictions in probability. Although he admitted the significance of the Hegelian concept of opposites, and also that the opposites indeed transition into one another, he used this concept almost always with regard to the history of culture and intellectual heritage. Cf. Lange (1887, p. 70, 770).
- 13.
The earliest Russian attacks on Engels’ dialectics might have come from Nikolai I. Ziber (Sieber), who had translated some parts of Anti-Dühring into Russian, and Nikolai K. Mikhailovskii. Cf. White (2009).
- 14.
- 15.
- 16.
Kautsky also failed to distinguish his position from that of other Social Democrats such as Ludwig Woltmann, who publicly suggested dropping the term ‘dialectics’, and adopting a ‘much more precise and rich concept such as “development”’. Socialists stand much closer to the ‘great Darwin … than Hegel’. Quote from Steinberg (1967, p. 58).
- 17.
Bernstein to Plechanow (23 September 1898), originally published in Der Kampf, 18 (1925), quoted from Sandkühler (1974, p. 19).
- 18.
Several years before, he had written a lengthy study that attempted to prove the opposite claim, that there is development both in nature and society. Cf. Kautsky (1910). Such views are to be read against the political context in which human autonomy and free will in social agents were played off against the allegedly crude determinism of the natural sciences.
- 19.
That Adler’s terminological choices are by no means arbitrary is clear from his short piece on Hegel and Marx’s dialectics. Cf. Adler (1990, pp. 849–858).
- 20.
Kautsky an Bernstein. 5. Oktober 1896; Kautsky an V. Adler. 26. Januar 1893. Quotes from Steinberg (1967, p. 58).
- 21.
- 22.
Curiously enough, David Joravsky’s assessment points to the opposite when he writes that Bogdanov considered dialectics ‘a needlessly confused version of the commonplace idea that opposing forces can sometimes produce motion and change’. Cf. Joravsky (2009, p. 137).
- 23.
Lukács reviewed the German edition of the book.
- 24.
- 25.
Paul Burkett (2013, p. 3; 2001, p. 130) once curiously claimed that Lukács did not deny dialectics of nature. He also asserted that ‘Lukács did not apply the dialectic to nature as well as society, in fact he viewed the application of dialectical method to nature as a concession to positivism’. See also Kangal (2015).
- 26.
It is not clear from the letter whether Nikolaevskii was referring to one of the four convolutes or to all manuscripts concerning Dialectics of Nature. Although Bernstein had signed a formal confirmation of transfer for the copyrights, he later changed his mind, claiming that he was the sole heir to Engels’ papers. Cf. Weil (2000c, p. 175), Bernstein (2000a, pp. 404–406) and Jäger (2000, p. 415).
- 27.
Foster (2000, p. 229) wrongly dates the first edition back to 1927. Levine (2006, p. 3) is mistaken in saying that it was ‘printed in the Soviet Union in full in 1927’. The complete edition was published by MEGA2 in 1985 in East Berlin. An anonymous entry in a recent Chinese Marxism dictionary wrongly claims that all manuscripts were published by 1925. The claim that the complete edition covers the years 1873–1882 is also mistaken. The latest piece of text in the 1925 edition dates to 1892 (Engels’ article on Carl Schorlemmer), in the MEGA2 edition to 1886 (passages originally written for the Ludwig Feuerbach article). The editorial subtitle of MEGA2 ‘(1873–1882)’ is misleading in so far as the previously mentioned 1886 fragment found a place in Engels’ ‘book’, and the four convolutes were prepared either in 1886 or shortly afterward. Cf. Engels ([1927] 1969, pp. 386–388) and Xu (2017, p. 331). Kangal, Karl Schmückle and Western Marxism, pp. 74–5.
- 28.
This contradicts Rolf Hecker’s account that it was planned for volume 15. Cf. Hecker (2000, pp. 75, 77). According to the 1931 plan for MEGA1, ‘Dialectics of Nature’, along with Anti-Dühring , was planned for publication in volume 18. See [Anonymous] (2001, p. 270), and Griese and Pawelzig (1995, p. 46). Rudas and Falk-Segal’ (2001, pp. 292, 297).
- 29.
By 1936, MEGA1 was planned to consist of five sections, including a separate section for excerpts by Marx and Engels. Cf. Rudaš and Falk-Segal’ (2001, p. 295).
- 30.
Note here that ‘Naturdialektik’ and ‘Dialektik der Natur’ are different formulations, even if they are semantically hard to distinguish. Russian and English do not follow this difference.
- 31.
Vladimir K. Brushlinskii was in charge of the Russian translation. Cf. Hecker (2001, p. 267).
- 32.
The two plans appeared under the editorial headings ‘Draft of General Plan’ and ‘Draft of Particular Plan’. Cf. Engel’s (1941, pp. 3–4).
- 33.
The latest version appeared in MEGA2 in 1985 in both chronological and systematical order. Unlike previous versions, this edition consisted of everything transmitted from Engels via Bernstein to Riazanov, without any omission whatsoever. Notwithstanding, it is curious that a single volume presents two different versions of the same text. The decision for a bi-versioned edition goes back to a discussion between Russian and German editors in the 1980s. A systematic ordering of the manuscripts was against the editorial principles of the historical-critical edition. But the former version, unlike the latter one, presents ‘the logical structure of the work’ much better. The debate ended with the compromise of publishing both versions. Cf. Griese and Pawelzig (1995, p. 56). It is also questionable that ‘Dialectics of Nature’ was integrated into section I (works, articles, drafts) rather than section IV (excerpts, notes, marginalia), because the manuscripts for the most part contain Engels’ reading notes. There is also Kedrov’s less well-known Russian/German editions (1973/79). Kedrov called them ‘Friedrich Engels on Dialectics of Natural Science’. The manuscripts there were arranged differently, distributing them to three sections: (1) dialectics of natural sciences, their historical development, issues concerning interdisciplinarity, dialectical philosophy and philosophy of nature; (2) mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, and so on; (3) critique of anti-dialectical conceptions of natural science, from vulgar materialism and mechanism to spiritualism and agnosticism. On Kedrov’s account, this reorganization lent a more complete character to what Engels had left behind. If Engels had finished the book, it would have looked like this. And what it indicates in this form is that Engels’ enterprise is not really about a dialectical ontology of nature but an epistemology of natural sciences. Hence the new title. Cf. Kedrov (1979, pp. 13, 506). This view gave rise much later to another debate in Germany on ‘dialectics of nature’ versus ‘dialectics of natural science’. Cf. Holz (2005, pp. 552–556). Holz (2005, p. 562) also distinguishes dialectics of nature from dialectics in nature. While the former term refers to a dialectical concept of totality, the latter suggests dialectical structures existing in nature. The former is subject matter for philosophy, the latter for natural science. If dialectics applies to natural science in any meaningful way, it does so under the premise of the existence of such structures in natural reality.
- 34.
In this regard, the editorial history of Dialectics of Nature shares some similarities with The German Ideology . Cf. Carver and Blank (2014).
- 35.
The German edition of the journal (Unter dem Banner des Marxismus) printed selected translations from Pod Znamenem Marksizma .
- 36.
There was no mention of this alliance in the German editorial forward. What the latter indicated was rather the opposite: that the journal was assigned the task of producing Marxist philosophy. Indeed, the journal was introduced to the German reader with a declaration of war against German and Austrian social democrat ideologies. It assured the readers that ‘the hegemony of Marxism has been established in the Soviet states’ [Editorial] (1925, p. 6).
- 37.
Neither the editorial introduction nor Lenin’s remark made clear what is meant by ‘communist’, let alone ‘materialist’. This vagueness reveals itself in the Deborinite controversy when opposite sides charge each other with idealism and non- or anti-Marxism. With regard to ‘non-Communist’, Deborin comes to mind. Although he became a Party member in 1928, he had converted from Menshevism to Bolshevism after the October revolution. And inclusiveness was still the case when the editorial permitted the publication of articles which it partly or entirely disagreed with. Such disagreements were always mentioned in a footnote to the article, insuring a forthcoming critique of it. It goes without saying that the ultimate goal of this alliance was not to promote non-communist philosophy but rather to win its proponents to communism, on one side, and to widen the scope of investigation and exploration of Marxist science, on the other.
- 38.
This group was one of the three tendencies predominant around 1925. On Luppol’s view (1930, p. 144), there were those who claimed that ‘(1) Marx and Engels were dialecticians, but not materialists; accordingly, dialectics is valid in society alone … Lukács, Korsch, Fogarasi … (2) Marx and Engels were mechanists or mechanical materialists as they should be; mechanics results from dialectics … I. Stepanov, A. Timiriazev, K. Aksel’rod … (3) Marx and Engels were mechanical materialists, which they should not be; a transition to empirio-criticism was inevitable … O. Jenssen.’ Luppol probably refers to Jenssen’s editorial introduction to Marxism and Natural Science, a collection of articles by Engels, Gustav Eckstein and Friedrich Adler. Cf. Jenssen (1925). Interestingly, Engels is called a ‘natural scientist’ in the subtitle of the book. On Deborin’s count (1925, p. 5), there were four tendencies: vulgarizers of Marxism and dialectics, mechanical materialists, anti-dialectical positivists and Hegelian idealists.
- 39.
- 40.
For a similar account of coincidence see Var’iash (1928, pp. 97–98).
- 41.
I borrow the term from Joravsky (2009, p. 227).
- 42.
Note here that this resolution was not mentioned in the contents of that journal issue.
- 43.
Other laws in the entry were unity of opposites (edinstvo protivopolozhnostei), transition of quantity into quality and vice versa (perekhod kolichestva v kachestvo i obratno), essence and phenomenon (sushchnost i iavlenie), basis and condition (osnovanie i uslovie), form and content (forma i soderzhanie), law and causality (zakon i prichinnost’) and possibility and reality (vozmozhnost’ i deistvitel’nost’). Cf. Mitin and V. Ral’tsevich (1935, pp. 147–198). Stalin’s negligence regarding the ‘negation of negation’ remained a mystery for later Soviet philosophers. See in this regard Chertkov (1953, p. 40), Moroz (1953, pp. 171–172) and Rozental’ (1967, pp. 267–79). Herbert Marcuse (1969, pp. 136–137) was therefore wrong to believe that ‘negation of negation’ had disappeared from the ‘dialectical vocabulary’ of Soviet Marxist philosophy.
- 44.
While Trotsky embraced the idea of natural dialectics, he was less generous than Stalin in terms of the variety of its principles. In his Philosophical Notebooks, Trotsky (1986, p. 88) associated opposites and negation with cognitive operations of scientific thinking. However, he singled out ‘the conversion of quantity into quality’ as ‘the fundamental law of dialectics’, that is, ‘the general formula of all evolutionary processes—of nature as well as of society’. I am tempted to ask: given his criticism of Soviet Union, political biography and appreciation of natural dialectics, should Trotsky be considered a ‘Western’ or ‘Soviet Marxist’?
- 45.
For a critical overview of the idealist accounts of Marx’s philosophy, see Wood (2004, pp. 189–194). Commenting on some of the aforementioned literature, Wood (2004, p. 192) observes ‘how Marx can be transformed into an idealist (even a rather demented one) simply by attributing to him a requisite degree of the commentator’s own philosophical confusion’.
- 46.
For further commentary on this debate see Gretskii (1966), Schmidt (1965), Novack (1996, pp. 231–255) and Remley (2012). However exhausting, the depiction above is far from complete. Due to the formal limits of this chapter, I ignore the 1977 debate in the British journal Marxism Today, the German debates in Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie from the 1950s onward, in Dialektik and TOPOS after the 1990s, and the most recent Anglophone debates on Engels’ contributions to contemporary ecology with regard to evolutionary biology and thermodynamics.
- 47.
Given the long list of insults, it is sometimes hard to tell whether one is dealing with a ‘debate’ or a ‘fight’.
References
[Anonymous]. (1929). Rezoliutsia po dokladu. In O. I. Shmidt (Ed.), Zadachi Marksistov v Oblasti Estestvoznania (pp. 127–130). Moskva: Izdatel’stvo Kommunisticheskoi Akademii.
[Anonymous]. (1931a). Ob itogakh diskussii i ocherednykh zadachakh marksistsko-lenininskoi filosofii. Pravda, 26 Ianvar’ 1931, 2–3.
[Anonymous]. (1931b). Sovremennye zadachi marksistsko-leniniskoi filosofii (Resoliutsia prezidiuma Kommunisticheskoi Akademii po dokladam, tt. Miliutina i Deborina ‘O raznoglasiakh na filosofskom fronte’ priniataia 11/1 1931 g.). Vestnik Kommunisticheskoi Akademii, 1, 15–22.
[Anonymous]. (2001). Allgemeiner Plan der MEGA. April 1931. In C.-E. Vollgraf, R. Sperl, & R. Hecker (Eds.), Beiträge zur Marx-Engels-Forschung Neue Folge. Sonderband 3. Stalinismus und das Ende der ersten Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (1931–1941) (pp. 270–271). Hamburg: Argument.
[Editorial]. (1922). Ot redaktsii. Pod Znamenem Marksizma, 1–2, 3–4.
[Editorial]. (1925). Geleitwort. Unter dem Banner des Marxismus, 1, 1–8.
[Editorial]. (1928). Marksistskoe mirovozzrenie i industrializatsia strany. Dialektika v Prirode, 3, 7–18.
[OVMD]. (1930). Resoliutsia po dokladu o polozhenii na filosofskom fronte. Priniata oblastnym pravleniem OVMD i obshchim sobraniem Ivano-Voznesenskoi organizatsii OVMD. Pod Znamenem Marksizma, 9, 216.
Adler, M. (1908). Marx als Denker. Zum 25. Todesjahre von Karl Marx. Berlin: Buchhandlung Vorwärts.
Adler, M. (1913). Marxistische Probleme. Beiträge zur Theorie der materialistischen Geschichtsauffassung und Dialektik. Stuttgart: Dietz.
Adler, M. (1990). Marx und die Dialektik. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie, 39(9), 849–858.
Adoratskij, V. (Ed.). (1935). Einleitung. In Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA1). Sonderausgabe. Zum vierzigsten Todestage von Friedrich Engels (pp. ix–xlvii). Moskau: Marx-Engels-Verlag.
Ahlberg, R. (1960). ‘Dialektische Philosophie’ und Gesellschaft in der Sowjetunion. Berlin: E. Blaschker.
Anderson, P. (1989). Considerations on Western Marxism. London: Verso.
Avineri, S. (1968). The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx. London: Cambridge University Press.
Bahnsen, J. (1882). Der Widerspruch im Wissen und Wesen der Welt. Princip und Einzelbewährung der Realdialektik. Berlin: Grieben.
Barth, P. (1890). Die Geschichtsphilosophie Hegel’s und der Hegelianer bis auf Marx und Hartmann. Ein kritischer Versuch. Leipzig: O. R. Reisland.
Bernstein, E. (1892). Zur Würdigung Friedrich Albert Lange’s (Schluß). Die Neue Zeit, 10.1891–1892, 2. Band, Heft 31, 132–141.
Bernstein, E. (1899). Dialektik und Entwicklung: Antwort auf Kautskys Artikel ‘Bernstein und die Dialektik’. Die Neue Zeit, 17.1898–99, 2. Band, Heft 37, 327–335.
Bernstein, E. (1905). Tugan-Baranowskys Marx-Kritik. In E. Bernstein (Ed.), Dokumente des Sozialismus. Hefte für Geschichte, Urkunden und Bibliographie des Sozialismus, V. Band (pp. 418–421). Berlin: Verlag der Sozialistischen Monatshefte.
Bernstein, E. (1921). Die Voraussetzungen des Sozialismus und die Aufgaben der Sozialdemokratie. Stuttgart: Dietz.
Bernstein, E. (2000a). Eduard Bernstein an Felix Weil. 19. Dezember 1924. In C.-E. Vollgraf, R. Sperl, & R. Hecker (Eds.), Beiträge zur Marx-Engels-Forschung Neue Folge. Sonderband 2. Erfolgreiche Kooperation: Das Frankfurter Institut für Sozialforschung und das Moskauer Marx-Engels-Institut (1924–1928) (pp. 403–406). Hamburg: Argument.
Bernstein, E. (2000b). Eduard Bernstein an MEAV. 12. November 1924. In C.-E. Vollgraf, R. Sperl, & R. Hecker (Eds.), Beiträge zur Marx-Engels-Forschung Neue Folge. Sonderband 2. Erfolgreiche Kooperation: Das Frankfurter Institut für Sozialforschung und das Moskauer Marx-Engels-Institut (1924–1928) (pp. 166–168). Hamburg: Argument.
Bogdanov, A. (1980). Essays in Tektology (G. Gorelik, Trans.). California: Intersystems Publications.
Bogdanov, A. (2016). The Philosophy of Living Experience Popular Outlines (D. G. Rowley, Trans.). Leiden: Brill.
Bucharin, N. (1967). Theorie des historischen Materialismus (1922). In W. Goerdt (Ed.), Die Sowjetphilosophie. Wendigkeit und Bestimmtheit. Dokumente (pp. 149–162). Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Bukharin, N. I. (1924). Ataka. Sbornik teoreticheskikh statei. Moskva: Gosudarstvennoe Izdatel’stvo.
Burkett, P. (2001). Marxʼs Ecology and the Limits of Contemporary Ecosocialism. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 12(3), 126–133.
Burkett, P. (2013). Lukács on Science: A New Act in the Tragedy. Historical Materialism, 21(3), 3–15.
Calvez, J.-C. (1964). Karl Marx. Darstellung und Kritik seines Denkens. Olten: Walter-Verlag.
Carver, T., & Blank, D. (2014). A Political History of the Editions of Marx and Engels’s “German ideology Manuscripts”. New York: Palgrave.
Chertkov, V. P. (1953). Dialekticheskii materializm – mirovozzrenie marksistsko-leninskoi partii. In G. Kurbatova (Ed.), O dialekticheskom materializme. Sbornik statei (pp. 3–46). Moskva: Gosudarstvennoe Izdatel’stvo Politicheskoi Literatury.
Czóbel, E. (2000). Ernst Czóbel an David Rjazanov. 13. August 1925. In C.-E. Vollgraf, R. Sperl, & R. Hecker (Eds.), Beiträge zur Marx-Engels-Forschung Neue Folge. Sonderband 2. Erfolgreiche Kooperation: Das Frankfurter Institut für Sozialforschung und das Moskauer Marx-Engels-Institut (1924–1928) (pp. 225–226). Hamburg: Argument.
Deborin, A. (1925). Vstupitel’nye zamenchania k konspektu ‘Nauki logiki’ N. Lenina. Pod Znamenem Marksizma, 1–2, 3–6.
Deborin, A. (1926). Ocherki po teorii materialisticheskoi dialektiki. Pod Znamenem Marksizma, 11, 5–23.
Deborin, A. (1927). Mekhanisty v borb’e s dialektikoi. Vestnik Kommunisticheskoi Akademii, 19, 21–61.
Deborin, A. (1933). Vystuplenie A. Deborina (Materialy nauchnoi sessii in-ta filosofii komakademii). Pod Znamenem Marksizma, 3, 141–153.
Deborin, A. (1961). Lenin i krizis noveishei fiziki. In A. M. Deborin (Ed.), Filosofia i Politika (pp. 415–440). Moskva: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR.
Deborin, A. (1971). Lukács und seine Kritik des Marxismus. In F. Cerutti, D. Claussen, H.-J. Krahl, O. Negt, & A. Schmidt (Eds.), Geschichte und Klassenbewußtsein Heute. Diskussion und Dokumentation (pp. 90–112). Amsterdam: Verlag de Munter.
Deborin, A. (1925/1926). Materialistische Dialektik und Naturwissenschaft. Unter dem Banner des Marxismus, 1(3), 429–458.
Dietzgen, J. (1920). Streifzüge eines Sozialisten in das Gebiet der Erkenntnistheorie. In E. Dietzgen (Ed.), Josef Dietzgen, Sämtliche Schriften, Zweiter Band. Stuttgart: Dietz.
Einstein, A. (2015). Opinion on Engels’ ‘Dialectics of Nature’. In A. Einstein (Ed.), The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein (Vol. 14, p. 414). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Ellissen, O. A. (1894). Friedrich Albert Lange. Eine Lebensbeschreibung. Leipzig: Julius Baedeker.
Engels, F. (1935). Herrn Eugen Dührings Umwälzung der Wissenschaft/Dialektik der Natur. 1873–1882. In Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA1). Sonderausgabe. Zum vierzigsten Todestage von Friedrich Engels. Moskau: Marx-Engels-Verlag.
Engels, F. (1941). Dialektika Prirody. Moskva: OGIZ/GOSPOLITIZDAT.
Engels, F. ([1927] 1969). Dialektik und Natur. In Marx-Engels-Archiv. Band 2 (pp. 151–395). Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Sauer & Auvermann KG.
Engels, F. (1979). Engels an Karl Kautsky. 3. Dezember 1891. In Marx-Engels-Werke (Vol. 38, pp. 233–235). Berlin: Dietz.
Engels, F. (1985). Dialektik der Natur. In Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA2) (Vol. I/26). Berlin: Dietz.
Engels, F. (1987a). Anti-Dühring. In Marx Engels Collected Works (Vol. 25, pp. 5–309). Moscow: Progress.
Engels, F. (1987b). Dialectics of Nature. In Marx Engels Collected Works (Vol. 25, pp. 313–622). Moscow: Progress.
Engels, F. (1987c). Engels to Lange. 29 March 1865. In Marx Engels Collected Works (Vol. 42, pp. 135–138). Moscow: Progress.
Engels, F. (1987d). Engels to Marx. 16 June 1867. In Marx Engels Collected Works (Vol. 42, pp. 381–383). Moscow: Progress.
Engels, F. (1988). Anti-Dühring. In Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA2) (Vol. I/27). Berlin: Dietz.
Engels, F. (1995a). Engels to Eduard Bernstein. 13-15 September 1884. In Marx Engels Collected Works (Vol. 47, pp. 190–192). Moscow: Progress.
Engels, F. (1995b). Engels to Friedrich Adolph Sorge. 3 June 1885. In Marx Engels Collected Works (Vol. 47, pp. 295–297). Moscow: Progress.
Engels, F. (1995c). Engels to Karl Kautsky. 11 April 1884. In Marx Engels Collected Works (Vol. 47, pp. 123–125). Moscow: Progress.
Engels, F. (2002). Engels an Friedrich Albert Lange. 29. März 1865. In Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA2) (Vol. III/13, pp. 361–364). Berlin: Akademie.
Engels, F. (2011). Ludwig Feuerbach und der Ausgang der klassischen deutschen Philosophi. In Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA2) (Vol. I/30, pp. 122–162). Berlin: Akademie.
Fabian, H. W. (1975). H.W. Fabian an Marx. 6. November 1880. In Marx-Engels-Werke (Vol. 20, p. 628). Berlin: Dietz.
Fechter, P. (1906). Die Grundlagen der Realdialektik. Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Bahnsen’schen Willensmetaphysik. München: Georg Müller.
Foster, J. B. (2000). Marx’s Ecology. Materialism and Nature. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Gramsci, A. (1971). Anmerkungen. In F. Cerutti, D. Claussen, H.-J. Krahl, O. Negt, & A. Schmidt (Eds.), Geschichte und Klassenbewußtsein Heute. Diskussion und Dokumentation (pp. 196–197). Amsterdam: Verlag de Munter.
Gretskii, M. N. (1966). Does Dialectics Exist in Nature? Soviet Studies in Philosophy, 4(4), 56–62.
Griese, A. (1985). Entstehung und Überlieferung. In Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA2) (Vol. I/26, pp. 569–607). Berlin: Dietz.
Griese, A., & Pawelzig, G. (1995). Friedrich Engels’ “Dialektik der Natur”: eine vergleichende Studie zur Editionsgeschichte. MEGA-Studien, 1995(1), 33–60.
Hecker, R. (2000). Erfolgreiche Kooperation: Das Frankfurter Institut für Sozialforschung und das Moskauer Marx-Engels-Institut (1924–1928). In C.-E. Vollgraf, R. Sperl, & R. Hecker (Eds.), Beiträge zur Marx-Engels-Forschung Neue Folge. Sonderband 2. Erfolgreiche Kooperation: Das Frankfurter Institut für Sozialforschung und das Moskauer Marx-Engels-Institut (1924–1928) (pp. 9–118). Hamburg: Argument.
Hecker, R. (2001). Fortsetzung und Ende der ersten MEGA zwischen Nationalsozialismus und Stalinismus (1931-1941). In C.-E. Vollgraf, R. Sperl, & R. Hecker (Eds.), Beiträge zur Marx-Engels-Forschung Neue Folge. Sonderband 3. Stalinismus und das Ende der ersten Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (1931–1941) (pp. 181–311). Hamburg: Argument.
Hegel, G. W. F. (1986a). Phänomenologie des Geistes. In Hegel Werke (Vol. 3). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Hegel, G. W. F. (1986b). Vorlesungen über die Ästhetik III. In Hegel Werke (Vol. 15). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Hegel, G. W. F. (1986c). Wissenschaft der Logik. In Hegel Werke (Vol. 5). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Hegel, G. W. F. (2010). Science of Logic (G. Di Giovanni, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hegel, G. W. F. (2018). The Phenomenology of Spirit (T. Pinkard, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hoffman, J. (1977, January). The Dialectics of Nature: “The Natural-Historical Foundation of our Outlook”. Marxism Today, pp. 11–18.
Holz, H. H. (2005). Weltentwurf und Reflexion. Versuch einer Grundlegung der Dialektik. Stuttgart: Metzler.
Hook, S. ([1950] 1962). From Hegel to Marx. Studies in the Intellectual Development of Karl Marx. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
Hyndman, H. M. (1911). The Record of an Adventurous Life. New York: The Macmillan Company.
IKP. (1930). Itogi filosofoskoi diskussii. (Resoliutsia biuro iacheiki IKP F. i E. ot 29 Dekabria 1930 g. Pod Znamenem Marksizma, 10–12, 15–24.
Iudin, P. 1930. K filosofskoi diskusii (V Institute krasnoi professory filosofii i estestvoznania i na prezidiuma Kommunisticheskoi Akademii). Pravda, 18 Noiabr’ 1930, 6–7.
Jacoby, R. (2002). Dialectic of Defeat. Contours of Western Marxism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jäger, H. (2000). MEV (Hans Jäger) an MEI. 14. Januar 1930. In C.-E. Vollgraf, R. Sperl, & R. Hecker (Eds.), Beiträge zur Marx-Engels-Forschung Neue Folge. Sonderband 2. Erfolgreiche Kooperation: Das Frankfurter Institut für Sozialforschung und das Moskauer Marx-Engels-Institut (1924–1928) (pp. 414–419). Hamburg: Argument.
Jenssen, O. (Ed.). (1925). Marxismus und Naturwissenschaft. Gedenkschrift zum 80. Todestage des Naturwissenschaftlers Friedrich Engels. Berlin: Verlagsgesellschaft des Allgemeinen Deutschen Gewerkschaftsbundes.
Joravsky, D. (2009). Soviet Marxism and Natural Science. 1917–1932. London: Routledge.
Kangal, K. (2015). Ontologie bei Lukács und Holz. Eine Replik auf Claudius Vellay. Aufhebung, 7, 113–130.
Kangal, K. (2016). Dialektik, Heuristik und Wahrscheinlichkeit. Aufhebung, 6, 51–70.
Kangal, K. (2017a). Carchedi’s Dialectics: A Critique. Science and Society, 81(3), 427–436.
Kangal, K. (2017b). Marx and Engels on Planetary Motion. Beiträge zur Marx-Engels-Forschung. Neue Folge, 2016/17, 202–224.
Kangal, K. (2018). Karl Schmückle and Western Marxism. Revolutionary Russia, 31(1), 67–85.
Kautsky, K. (1899). Bernstein und die Dialektik. Die Neue Zeit, 17.1898–99, 2. Band, Heft 28, 36E–50.
Kautsky, K. (1910). Vermehrung und Entwicklung in Natur und Gesellschaft. Stuttgart: Dietz.
Kautsky, K. (1927). Die materialistische Geschichtsauffassung. Berlin: Dietz.
Kedrov, B. M. (1979). Friedrich Engels über die Dialektik der Naturwissenschaft. Berlin: Dietz.
Kołakowski, L. (1968). Toward a Marxist Humanism. Essays on the Left Today. New York: Grove Press.
Kołakowski, L. (1978). Main Currents of Marxism: Its Rise, Growth, and Dissolution. Volume I: The Founders. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Lange, F. A. (1865). Die Arbeiterfrage in ihrer Bedeutung für Gegenwart und Zukunft [1st Edition]. Duisburg: Verlag von Falk & Volmer.
Lange, F. A. (1870). Die Arbeiterfrage in ihrer Bedeutung für Gegenwart und Zukunft [2nd Edition]. Winterthur: Bleuler-Hausherr.
Lange, F. A. (1877). Logische Studien. Ein Beitrag zur Neubegründung der formalen Logik und der Erkenntnisstheorie. Iserlohn: Verlag von J. Baedeker.
Lange, F. A. (1887). Geschichte des Materialismus und Kritik seiner Bedeutung in der Gegenwart. Iserlohn: Verlag von J. Baedeker.
Lange, F. A. (1968a). Brief an Louis Büchner [5 March 1865]. In G. Eckert (Ed.), Friedrich Albert Lange, Über Politik und Philosophie. Briefe und Leitartikel 1862–1875 (pp. 45–47). Duisburg: Walter Braun Verlag.
Lange, F. A. (1968b). Politische Uebersicht [12 March 1865], Wochenblatt für die Grafschaft Mark. In G. Eckert (Ed.), Friedrich Albert Lange, Über Politik und Philosophie. Briefe und Leitartikel 1862–1875 (pp. 660–662). Duisburg: Walter Braun Verlag.
Lenin, V. I. (1922). O znachenii voinstvuiushchego materializma. Pod Znamenem Marksizma, 3, 5–12.
Levine, N. (2006). The Tragic Deception: Marx contra Engels. Oxford: Clio Books.
Lewis, J. (1972). The Marxism of Marx. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Lichtheim, G. (1972). Marxism. An historical and critical study. London: Routledge.
Lukács, G. (1960). Briefe an Theo Pinkus. 12. September 1959, 6. Juni 1860 und 28. Juni 1860. http://real-ms.mtak.hu/20291/1/Lukacs_lev_32_1411_Pinkus_Theodor_2.pdf. Accessed 30 Mar 2019.
Lukács, G. (1967a). Gespräche mit Georg Lukács. Hamburg: Rowohlt.
Lukács, G. (1967b). N. Bucharin: Theorie des historischen Materialismus (Rezension). In G. Lukács (Ed.), Schriften zur Ideologie und Politik (pp. 188–200). Berlin: Luchterhand.
Lukács, G. (1971a). Die Bedeutung von ‘Materialismus und Empiriokritizismus’ für die Bolschewisierung der kommunistischen Parteien. Kritik und Selbstkritik zu “Geschichte und Klassenbewußtsein”. In F. Cerutti, D. Claussen, H.-J. Krahl, O. Negt, & A. Schmidt (Eds.), Geschichte und Klassenbewußtsein Heute. Diskussion und Dokumentation (pp. 253–262). Amsterdam: Verlag de Munter.
Lukács, G. (1971b). History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics. Cambridge: MIT.
Lukács, G. (1977). Geschichte und Klassenbewußtsein. In Georg Lukács Werke (Vol. 2). Neuwied: Luchterhand.
Lukács, G. (1984). Zur Ontologie des gesellschaftlichen Seins. I. Halbband. In Georg Lukács Werke (Vol. 13). Neuwied: Luchterhand.
Lukács, G. (1999). Chvostismus und Dialektik (1925/26). Jahrbuch der Internationalen Georg-Lukács-Gesellschaft, 1998/99, 119–160.
Lukács, G. (2000). A Defense of History and Class Consciousness: Tailism and the Dialectic. London: Verso.
Luppol, I. (1930). Na dva fronta. Sbornik statei. Moskva: Gosudarstvennoe Izdatel’stvo.
Macintyre, S. (1986). A Proletarian Science. Marxism in Britain, 1917–1933. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Marcuse, H. (1969). Soviet Marxism. A Critical Analysis. New York: Columbia University.
Marx, K. (1966a). Marx an Pjotr Lawrowitsch Lawrow. 18. Juni 1875. In Marx-Engels-Werke (Vol. 34, p. 145). Berlin: Dietz.
Marx, K. (1966b). Marx an Wilhelm Alexander Freund. 21. Januar 1877. In Marx-Engels-Werke (Vol. 34, pp. 245–246). Berlin: Dietz.
Marx, K. (1974a). Marx an Ludwig Kugelmann. 17. März 1868. In Marx-Engels-Werke (Vol. 32, pp. 540–541). Berlin: Dietz.
Marx, K. (1974b). Marx an Ludwig Kugelmann. 6. März 1868. In Marx-Engels-Werke (Vol. 32, pp. 538–539). Berlin: Dietz.
Marx, K. (1977). A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm. Visited 19 Oct 2018.
Marx, K. (1980). Zur Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Erstes Heft. In Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA2) (Vol. II/2, pp. 95–245). Berlin: Dietz.
Marx, K. (1983). Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Erster Band. Hamburg 1867. In Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA2) (Vol. II/5). Berlin: Dietz.
Marx, K. (1984). Das neue englische Budget. In Marx-Engels-Werke (Vol. 12, pp. 129–136). Berlin: Dietz.
Marx, K. (1987a). Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Erster Band. Hamburg 1872. In Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA2) (Vol. II/6). Berlin: Dietz.
Marx, K. (1987b). Marx to Engels. 19 August 1865. In Marx Engels Collected Works (Vol. 42, pp. 383–386). Moscow: Progress.
Marx, K. (1987c). Marx to Kugelmann. 6 March 1868. In Marx Engels Collected Works (Vol. 42, pp. 543–544). Moscow: Progress.
Marx, K. (1991a). Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Erster Band. Hamburg 1890. In Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA2) (Vol. II/10). Berlin: Dietz.
Marx, K. (1991b). Marx to Pyotr Lavrov. 18 June 1875. In Marx Engels Collected Works (Vol. 45, p. 78). Moscow: Progress.
Marx, K. (1991c). Marx to Wilhelm Alexander Freund. 21 January 1877. In Marx Engels Collected Works (Vol. 45, pp. 191–192). Moscow: Progress.
Marx, K. (1996). Capital. Vol. I. In Marx Engels Collected Works (Vol. 35). Moscow: Progress.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1975). The German Ideology. In Marx Engels Collected Works (Vol. 5). Moscow: Progress.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (2017). Deutsche Ideologie. Manuskripte und Drucke. In Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA2) (Vol. I/5). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1947). Marxism and Philosophy. Politics, 4, 173–176.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1973). Adventures of the Dialectic. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Minin, S. (1922). Filosofia za bort! Pod Znamenem Marksizma, 5–6, 122–12e6.
Mitin, M., & Ral’tsevich, V. (Eds.). (1935). Bol’shaia Sovetskaia Entsiklopedia, tom 22 (pp. 147–198). Moskva: OGIZ.
Mitin, M., V. Ral’tsevich, P. Iudin (1930, June 7). O novykh zadachakh marksistsko-leninskoi filosofii, Pravda, pp. 3–4.
Moroz, K. V. (1953). Razvitie kak perekhod kolichestvennykh izmenenii v korennye, kachestvennye izmenenia. In G. Kurbatova (Ed.), O dialekticheskom materializme. Sbornik statei (pp. 143–184). Moskva: Gosudarstvennoe Izdatel’stvo Politicheskoi Literatury.
Nikolaevskij, B. (1997a). Nikolaevskij an Felix Weil. 24. November 1924. In C.-E. Vollgraf, R. Sperl, & R. Hecker (Eds.), Beiträge zur Marx-Engels-Forschung Neue Folge. Sonderband 1. David Borisovič Rjazanov und die erste MEGA (p. 63). Hamburg: Argument.
Nikolaevskij, B. (1997b). Nikolaevskij an Rjazanov. 2. November 1924. In C.-E. Vollgraf, R. Sperl, & R. Hecker (Eds.), Beiträge zur Marx-Engels-Forschung Neue Folge. Sonderband 1. David Borisovič Rjazanov und die erste MEGA (pp. 62–63). Hamburg: Argument.
Novack, G. (1996). Polemics in Marxist Philosophy. New York: Pathfinder.
Peredovaia. (1930). Vazheneishii istoricheskii dokument. Pod Znamenem Marksizma, 10–12, 3–14.
Plechanow, G. W. (1958). Grundprobleme des Marxismus. Berlin: Dietz.
Plekhanov, G. V. (1956). K voprosu o roli lichnosti v istorii. In G. V. Plekhanov (Ed.), Izbrannye filosofskie proizvedenia, Tom II (pp. 300–334). Moskva: Gosudarstvennoe Izdatel’stvo Politicheskoi Literatury.
Rée, J. (1984). Proletarian Philosophers. In Problems in Socialist Culture in Britain, 1900–1940. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Remley, W. L. (2012). Sartre and Engels. The Critique of Dialectical Reason and the Confrontation on the Dialectics of Nature. Sartre Studies International, 18(2), 19–48.
Rjazanov, D. B. ([1927] 1969). Einleitung. In Marx-Engels-Archiv (Vol. 2, pp. 117–150). Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Sauer & Auvermann KG.
Rjazanov, D. B. (1997). Referat Rjazanovs über die Aufgaben des Marx-Engels-Instituts 1930/31. In C.-E. Vollgraf, R. Sperl, & R. Hecker (Eds.), Beiträge zur Marx-Engels-Forschung Neue Folge. Sonderband 1. David Borisovič Rjazanov und die erste MEGA (pp. 10–124). Hamburg: Argument.
Rjazanov, D. B. (2000a). David Rjazanov an Carl Grünberg. 23. Juni 1925. In C.-E. Vollgraf, R. Sperl, & R. Hecker (Eds.), Beiträge zur Marx-Engels-Forschung Neue Folge. Sonderband 2. Erfolgreiche Kooperation: Das Frankfurter Institut für Sozialforschung und das Moskauer Marx-Engels-Institut (1924–1928) (pp. 221–222). Hamburg: Argument.
Rjazanov, D. B. (2000b). MEI (Rjazanov) an GfS. 5. November 1924. In C.-E. Vollgraf, R. Sperl, & R. Hecker (Eds.), Beiträge zur Marx-Engels-Forschung Neue Folge. Sonderband 2. Erfolgreiche Kooperation: Das Frankfurter Institut für Sozialforschung und das Moskauer Marx-Engels-Institut (1924–1928) (pp. 151–153). Hamburg: Argument.
Rjazanov, D. B. (2000c). MEI an GfS. 11. Dezember 1924. In C.-E. Vollgraf, R. Sperl, & R. Hecker (Eds.), Beiträge zur Marx-Engels-Forschung Neue Folge. Sonderband 2. Erfolgreiche Kooperation: Das Frankfurter Institut für Sozialforschung und das Moskauer Marx-Engels-Institut (1924–1928) (pp. 182–186). Hamburg: Argument.
Rozental’, M. M. (1967). Dialektika “Kapitala” K. Marksa. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo “Mysl”.
Rudas, L. (1971a). Die Klassenbewußtseinstheorie von Lukács. In F. Cerutti, D. Claussen, H.-J. Krahl, O. Negt, & A. Schmidt (Eds.), Geschichte und Klassenbewußtsein Heute. Diskussion und Dokumentation (pp. 113–162). Amsterdam: Verlag de Munter.
Rudas, L. (1971b). Orthodoxer Marxismus? In F. Cerutti, D. Claussen, H.-J. Krahl, O. Negt, & A. Schmidt (Eds.), Geschichte und Klassenbewußtsein Heute. Diskussion und Dokumentation (pp. 67–89). Amsterdam: Verlag de Munter.
Rudaš, L., & Falk-Segal’, L. C. (2001). Erklärung zur Herausgabe der MEGA. 25. März 1936. In C.-E. Vollgraf, R. Sperl, & R. Hecker (Eds.), Beiträge zur Marx-Engels-Forschung Neue Folge. Sonderband 3. Stalinismus und das Ende der ersten Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (1931–1941) (pp. 292–307). Hamburg: Argument.
Sandkühler, H.-J. (1974). Kant, neukantianischer Sozialismus, Revisionismus. Zur Entstehung der Ideologie des demokratischen Sozialismus. In H.-J. Sandkühler (Ed.), Marxismus und Ethik (pp. 7–44). Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Sartre, J.-P. (1947). Materialism and Revolution. Politics, 1947(4), 161–172.
Sartre, J.-P. (2004). Critique of Dialectical Reason. Volume 1. Theory of Practical Ensembles. London: Verso.
Sartre, J.-P., Garaudy, R., Hyppolite, J., Vigier, J.-P., & Orcel, J. (1962). Marxisme et Existentialisme. Controverse sur la dialectique. Paris: Plon.
Schitlowsky, C. (1895). Beiträge zur Geschichte und Kritik des Marxismus. I. Einleitung, Deutsche Worte, XV. Jahrgang, 193–211.
Schitlowsky, C. (1896). Beiträge zur Geschichte und Kritik des Marxismus. II. Die Widerspruchslogik bei Hegel und Marx, Deutsche Worte, XV. Jahrgang, 337–372.
Schitlowsky, C. (1899). Die Polemik Plechanow contra Stern und Conrad Schmidt [Schluss.]. Socialistische Monatshefte, 7, 322–330.
Schmidt, A. (1965). Zum Verhältnis von Geschichte und Natur im dialektischen Materialismus. In Existentialismus und Marxismus. Eine Kontroverse zwischen Sartre, Garaudy, Hyppolite, Vigier und Orcel (pp. 103–155, A. Schmidt, Trans.). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Schmidt, A. (1993). Der Begriff der Natur in der Lehre von Marx. Hamburg: Europäische Verlagsanstalt.
Schweigmann-Greve, K. (2012). Chaim Zhitlowsky: Philosoph, Sozialrevolutionär und Theoretiker einer säkularen nationaljüdischen Identität. Beltz: Wehrhahn Verlag.
Sheehan, H. (1993). Marxism and the Philosophy of Science. A Critical History. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press.
Sombart, W. (1924). Der Begriff der Gesetzmäßigkeit bei Marx. Schmollers Jahrbuch, 47, 11–31.
Stalin, I. V. (1997). O dialekticheskom i istoricheskom materializme. In Stalin, Sochinenia, tom 14 (pp. 253–282). Moskva: Izdatel’stvo “Pisatel’”.
Steinberg, H.-J. (1967). Sozialismus und deutsche Sozialdemokratie. Zur Ideologie der Partei vor dem I. Weltkrieg. Hannover: Verlag für Literatur und Zeitgeschehen.
Stepanov, I. (1924a). Istoricheskii materializm i sovremennoe estestvoznanie. Marksizm i Leninizm. Ocherki sovremennogo mirovozzrenia. Moskva: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo.
Stepanov, I. (1924b). O moikh oshibkakh, ‘otkrytykh i ispavlennykh’ tov. Stenom. Bolshevik, 14, 82–90.
Stepanov, I. (1925). Engel’s i mekhanisticheskoe ponimanie prirody. Pod Znamenem Marksizma, 8-9, 44–72.
Stepanov, I. (1928). Dialekticheskii materializm i deborinskaia shkola. Moskva: Gosudarstvennoe Izdatel’stvo.
Struik, D. J. (1934). On the Foundations of the Theory of Probabilities. Philosophy of Science, 1(1), 50–70.
Struik, D. J. (1935). Zur Begründung der Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie. Unter dem Banner des Marxismus, IX(2), 169–193.
The Engels Society. (1949a). Transactions of the Engels Society, April (1). https://wellcomelibrary.org/item/b19917028#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&z=0.0795%2C0.3834%2C0.9222%2C0.5793. Accessed 30 June 2019.
The Engels Society. (1949b). Transactions of the Engels Society, July (2). https://wellcomelibrary.org/item/b19917041#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&z=0.055%2C0.5302%2C0.7667%2C0.4816. Accessed 30 June 2019.
Timiriaseff, A. (1925/1926). Engels’ ‘Naturdialektik’ und die moderne Physik. Unter dem Banner des Marxismus, 1(3), 459–473.
Timiriazev, A. (1926). Voskreshaet li sovremennoe estestvoznanie mekhanicheskii materializm XVIII stoletia? Vestnik Kommunisticheskoi Akademii, 17, 116–168.
Trendelenburg, A. (1843). Die logische Frage in Hegel’s System. Zwei Streitschriften. Leipzig: Brockhaus.
Trendelenburg, A. (1862). Logische Untersuchungen. Erster Band. Leipzig: Verlag von S. Hirzel.
Troitskii, A. (1924). Filosofia na sluzhbe revoliutsii. Pod Znamenem Marksizma, 4–5, 12–19.
Trotsky, L. D. (1986). Trotsky’s Notebooks, 1933–1935. Writings on Lenin, Dialectics, and Evolutionism (P. Pomper, Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press.
Untermann, E. (1910). Die logischen Mängel des engeren Marxismus. Georg Plechanow et alii gegen Josef Dietzgen. Auch ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Materialismus. München: Verlag der Dietzgenschen Philosophie.
van der Linden, M. (2007). Western Marxism and the Soviet Union. A Survey of Critical Theories and Debates Since 1917. Leiden: Brill.
Var’iash, A. I. (1924). Istoria filosofii i marksistskaia filosofia istorii. Vestnik Kommunisticheskoi Akademii, 9, 253–342.
Var’iash, A. (1928). Ob obshchikh zakonakh dialektiki v knige Engel’sa ‘Dialektika Prirody’. Dialektika v Prirode, 3, 76–128.
Voden, A. (1956). Talks with Engels. In Reminiscences of Marx and Engels (pp. 325–334). Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing Company.
von Dühring, D. (1865). Natürliche Dialektik. Neue logische Grundlegungen der Wissenschaft und Philosophie. Berlin: Mittler.
von Dühring, D. (1873). Kritische Geschichte der Philosophie von ihren Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart. Berlin: Heimann.
von Dühring, D. (1875). Cursus der Philosophie als streng-wissenschaftlicher Weltanschauung und Lebensgestaltung. Leipzig: Heimann.
von Hartmann, E. (Ed.). (1868). Ueber die dialektische Methode. Historisch-kritische Untersuchungen. Berlin: Carl Duncker’s Verlag.
von Hartmann, E. (1885). Philosophische Fragen der Gegenwart. Leipzig: Verlag von Wilhelm Friedrich.
von Struve, P. (1899). Die Marxsche Theorie der sozialen Entwicklung. Ein kritischer Versuch. In H. Braun (Ed.), Archiv für soziale Gesetzgebung und Statistik (Vol. 14, pp. 658–704). Berlin: Carl Heymanns Verlag.
Weil, F. (2000a). Felix Weil an Eduard Bernstein. 3. Dezember 1924. In C.-E. Vollgraf, R. Sperl, & R. Hecker (Eds.), Beiträge zur Marx-Engels-Forschung Neue Folge. Sonderband 2. Erfolgreiche Kooperation: Das Frankfurter Institut für Sozialforschung und das Moskauer Marx-Engels-Institut (1924–1928) (pp. 178–179). Hamburg: Argument.
Weil, F. (2000b). Felix Weil an Eduard Bernstein. 9. Dezember 1924. In C.-E. Vollgraf, R. Sperl, & R. Hecker (Eds.), Beiträge zur Marx-Engels-Forschung Neue Folge. Sonderband 2. Erfolgreiche Kooperation: Das Frankfurter Institut für Sozialforschung und das Moskauer Marx-Engels-Institut (1924–1928) (pp. 194–195). Hamburg: Argument.
Weil, F. (2000c). GfS (Felix Weil) an MEI (David Rjazanov). 29. November 1924. In C.-E. Vollgraf, R. Sperl, & R. Hecker (Eds.), Beiträge zur Marx-Engels-Forschung Neue Folge. Sonderband 2. Erfolgreiche Kooperation: Das Frankfurter Institut für Sozialforschung und das Moskauer Marx-Engels-Institut (1924–1928) (pp. 175–177). Hamburg: Argument.
Weston, T. (2012). Marx on the Dialectics of Elliptical Motion. Historical Materialism, 20(4), 3–38.
White, J. D. (2009). Nikolai Sieber, The First Russian Marxist. Revolutionary Russia, 22(1), 1–20.
Wolff, R. D. (1978). Western Marxism. Monthly Review, 30(4), 55–64.
Wood, A. W. (2004). Karl Marx. New York: Routledge.
Xu, G. (Ed.). (2017). Makesizhuyi Dacidian. Gongzuo Weiyuanhui. Wuhan: Chongwenshuju.
Zhou, L. (2008). Renhua Ziran Bianzhengfa. Dui Makesi de ziranguan de jiedu. Beijing: Renmin Chubanshi.
Žižek, S. (2000). Postface: Georg Lukács as the Philosopher of Leninism. In G. Lukács (Ed.), A Defense of History and Class Consciousness: Tailism and the Dialectic (pp. 151–182). London: Verso.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kangal, K. (2020). The Origins of the Engels Debate. In: Friedrich Engels and the Dialectics of Nature. Marx, Engels, and Marxisms. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34335-4_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34335-4_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-34334-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-34335-4
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)