Dialectics as a Method in The History of Economic Thought

Abstract

This article examines the usefulness and limitations of the Hegelian dialectical framework (thesis-antithesis-synthesis) as a method for interpreting the evolution of economic thought, based on its application to the Classical, Marxist, and Neoclassical periods. The study, employing a qualitative approach with a documentary and analytical design, is based on a review of primary and secondary sources and is structured around a literature review, the delimitation of the analytical sequence, and content analysis to identify which aspects the framework captures and which it tends to overlook. The results confirm the heuristic value of dialectics for visualizing moments of epistemological rupture, internal contradictions, and adaptive responses within economic theories. The limitations are also highlighted, such as the tendency to impose a teleological narrative, to oversimplify complex historical processes, the arbitrariness in defining thesis and antithesis, the incomplete resolution of contradictions—as occurs with the neoclassical synthesis, which fails to integrate the core of Marxist critique, evading it instead with a change in methodological approach—and the omission of cumulative and gradual processes. It is concluded that dialectics is a valuable tool for understanding the past, but it should not be used as dogma or as a substitute for historical analysis; its use requires critical awareness and must be complemented by other methodological approaches that account for the complexity of intellectual development.