It was the exceptional historical sense underlying Hegel's manner of reasoning which distinguished it from that of all other philosophers.However abstract and idealist the form employed，yet his evolution of ideas runs always parallel with the evolution of universal history，and the latter was indeed supposed to be only the proof of the former.Although this reversed the actual relation and stood it on its head，yet the real content was invariably incorporated in his philosophy，especially since Hegel --unlike his followers --did not rely on ignorance，but was one of the most erudite thinkers of all time.He was the first to try to demonstrate that there is an evolution，an intrinsic coherence in history，and however strange some things in his philosophy of history may seem to us now，the grandeur of the basic conception is still admirable today，compared both with his predecessors and with those who following him ventured to advance general historical observations.This monumental conception of history pervades the Ph?nomenologies，Asthetik and Geschichte der Philosophie，and the material is everywhere set forth historically，in a definite historical context，even if in an abstract distorted manner.
This epoch-making conception of history was a direct theoretical pre-condition of the new materialist outlook，and already this constituted a connecting link with the logical method as well.Since，even from the standpoint of "pure reasoning"，this forgotten dialectics had led to such results，and had moreover with the greatest ease coped with the whole of the former logic and metaphysics，it must at all events comprise more than sophistry and hairsplitting.But the critique of this method，which the entire official philosophy had evaded and still evades，was no small matter.
Marx was and is the only one who could undertake the work of extracting from the Hegelian logic the nucleus containing Hegel's real discoveries in this field，and of establishing the dialectical method，divested of its idealist wrappings，in the simple form in which it becomes the only correct mode of conceptual evolution.The working out of the method which underlies Marx's critique of political economy is，we think，a result hardly less significant than the basic materialist conception.
Even after the determination of the method，the critique of economics could still be arranged in two ways --historically or logically.Since in the course of history，as in its literary reflection，the evolution proceeds by and large from the simplest to the more complex relations，the historical development of political economy constituted a natural clue，which the critique could take as a point of departure，and then the economic categories would appear on the whole in the same order as in the logical exposition.This form seems to have the advantage of greater lucidity，for it traces the actual development，but in fact it would thus become，at most，more popular.History moves often in leaps and bounds and in a zigzag line，and as this would have to be followed throughout，it would mean not only that a considerable amount of material of slight importance would have to be included，but also that the train of thought would frequently have to be interrupted；it would，moreover，be impossible to write the history of economy without that of bourgeois society，and the task would thus become immense，because of the absence of all preliminary studies.
The logical method of approach was therefore the only suitable one.This，however，is indeed nothing but the historical method，only stripped of the historical form and diverting chance occurrences.The point where this history begins must also be the starting point of the train of thought，and its further progress will be simply the reflection，in abstract and theoretically consistent form，of the historical course.Though the reflection is corrected，it is corrected in accordance with laws provided by the actual historical course，since each factor can be examined at the stage of development where it reaches its full maturity，its classical form.
