Squeers, I searched for Marcuse's concept of Essence on Wicki,
nobody has bothered to even write a 1 page essay to sum it up.
Clearly the rest of the world is not as convinced as you, that
it matters.

When I was in my teens, I lived in Paris for a couple of years.
Its an inspiring place, full of inspiring people. People
inspired by Freud, Jung and all the rest. I read and discussed
countless opinions, to improve my understanding of human nature.
Nearly all of them led up little then a garden path. For
of course philosophy is mere speculation and as Dawkins
wisely pointed out, our mountain of knowledge increases daily,
so all of us alive today, have the ability to know far more about
the world, then even an Einstein did in his time.

Any hypothesis is worthless, if only one of the assumptions made
are flawed. Yet you ideologues seem to bog yourselves down in
much way out of date philosophy. That is wonderful navel gazing,
but little else. Fans of Jesus and Allah, have similar trains
of thought, with their old books.

Personally I've made far more progess in understanding the world,
by broadening my understanding of life and including biology,
evolution theory, primatology, endocrinology, genetics and neuroscience
as fields of interest.

I also don't have the arrogance of a Poirot, who seemingly thinks
that people are mindless and that she knows better then them,
how much they should or should not consume, how little or how hard
they should work, how much or little they should borrow, etc.
I prefer for people themselves to decide these things, as long
as they live by the consequences of their actions.

Continued for all...

As for Marxism, the idea that, "It is not consciousness of men that determines their being, but on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness." (Presumably Marx via Poirot) is non-sensical. I am suspicious that Marx came up with this one not through any actual belief in the concept but simply because it supports the idea of revolution. (Squeers, Grok, you may react violently to this but it is possible that you have been brainwashed.)

We may go along with our society to some extent, adjusting our belief systems, becoming more competitive or cooperative, materialistic or spiritual etc. If our society goes too far one way or the other, however, we will not keep going with it, we will reject it. (As we continue to reject the wilder excesses of lassez faire and we have rejected numerous attempts at socialism.)

Squeers, Grok,

My interpretation of the dialectic is different to Marx's. That doesn't mean that it is either automatically wrong, or that I am ignorant. If the guy is that good, surely he can stand up against a little criticism.

Personally I think that your own position (Grok especially) is so marginal as to be almost politically irrelevant. You do no favours to the socialist movement, much of which has had very positive elements.

You want questions Grok?! I usually look for friendly communication before kicking in with questions. (I guess you can always blame your rudeness on capitalism.... or perhaps it is just the emotional trauma associated with being brainwashed by Karl Marx.)

Yabby:
<Any hypothesis is worthless, if only one of the assumptions made
are flawed. Yet you ideologues seem to bog yourselves down in
much way out of date philosophy. That is wonderful navel gazing,
but little else. Fans of Jesus and Allah, have similar trains
of thought, with their old books.>
For heaven's sake, Yabby! I can assure you I am a thoroughgoing sceptic in all things. 'That'is the appeal of Marx's materialism; it is precisely 'not' like the speculations and idealism of philosophy and religion! Historical materialism is based on a real, 'material' dialectic which provides an 'immanent critique' of capitalism. You don't have a bloody clue mate! And Marcuse is a world-renowned authority on the subject regardless of what Wiki doesn't have to say about it. The modern hubris you sprout, btw, about the communication revolution and the "ability" to 'know more than even Einstein', doesn't take into account that the information still has to be processed by each individual brain. Moreover, this glut of information merely makes a world of ignorant dilettantes. I would rather have quality (depth of understanding) than quantity (superficial knowledge, as demonstrated in abundance on this thread).
GH: <My interpretation of the dialectic is different to Marx's.>
You haven't given us your interpretation of 'the dialectic', just some woolly nonsense; perhaps you'd like to lay it out for us?

Gilbert Holmes,

(To clarify)...Marx wrote in 1859: "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being determines their consciousness."
Why do you find this nonsensical?

Why don't you have a squiz at his ideas on human nature before you go surmising on the reasons he comes up with things?

*Don't sell yourself short Yabby. You can claim your love just like you can claim your power.*

Ah Gilbert, but love of course, is based on how something or
somebody makes YOU feel, so based on your self interest.
We have had this discussion before on OLO, but we can have
it again.

*Historical materialism is based on a real, 'material' dialectic which provides an 'immanent critique' of capitalism. You don't have a bloody clue mate!*

That is wonderful for you Squeers, but of course it all relates
back to human behaviour and the assumptions we make.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx's_theory_of_human_nature

Much as you seemingly hate modern information, that is not a bad summary
of what Marx believed. Enough to shoot holes through, all
over the place.

Squeers etc,

Gilbert's Interpretation of the Dialectic in 350 Words or Less

The dialectic is inherent within all progressions within nature, small and large, complex and simple. Dialectically speaking, progressions involve a swinging between archetypal, polar extremes, with also a tendency to progress forward discernable, via a resolution being found between those extremes.

The dialectic nature of progressions is best understood in terms of the broader polar (yin/yang) nature of nature. Specifically, I suggest we can recognise three 'fundamental polarities':
1.yin/yang is the underlying polarity.
2.being/non-being relates to manifestation and structure. Here we have more/less, matter/energy, body/mind
3.separateness/connectedness relates to consciousness and interactions. Here we have cooperate/compete, love/self-interest, the interplay between the self and community etc.

So with yin/yang as the underlying polarity, we can look at precisely two categories of dialectic progression; on the being/non-being spectrum and on the separateness/connectedness spectrum.

We can look at these two like a vertical and horizontal axis if we like. (This is similar to Ken Wilber's quadrants, though he is perhaps as prolific and complex as Karl Marx and I haven't read it all.)

Looking at human society, Sorokin suggested that we can witness three competing paradigms, the sensate, (materialistic) the ideational (spiritual) and the idealistic (balanced) though I think with the two intersecting kinds of dialectic progression, it is a little more complex than this.

The primary dialectic tension within our global society over the last two hundred years would I suggest be between what I call 'separatism', and colletivism. While he has informed the debate, on the two axis that I mentioned, Marx falls down hard on the materialistic and on the collectivist ends of the two spectrums.

Personally, I am an advocate of balance.