marx

Marx's theory of history
The Marxist theory of historical materialism claims society as fundamentally determined by the material conditions at any given time - this means the relationships which people enter into with one another in order to fulfill their basic needs, for instance to feed and clothe themselves and their families.[1] In general Marx and Engels claimed to have identified five successive stages of the development of these material conditions in Western Europe.[2]
Marx saw history as a series of "inevitable" stages:
First man lived in primitive communist family groups, then a slave society developed - with strong leaders, next came feudalism, then capitalism - Imperialism, he thought was the highest stage of capitalism, next socialism -where all the means of production are owned by the state, and the state works on behalf of the workers, and finally he thought that communism would emerge - this is where there is no longer the need for a state, and all economic and political differences have disappeared.
The transition form one stage to the next, he argued, was marked by crises, which caused the collapse of the old order and the emergence of the new. He thought that, even though the stages were inevitable, some countries may begin a new stage of history, and then external factors could stifle their development and they could be put back to the previous stage.
Very roughly, cognate with Hegel's schema of the way thought progresses.
According to this, an existing paradigm or pattern of thought (the thesis) is challenged by a different interpretation (antithesis). As a resultant of this clash, a new paradigm, more valid than either (the synthesis) emerges. Marx applied this to political and social systems. An existing system was challenged by a revolutionary movement: as a result of the conflict, a new system emerges.

An example: the feudal system (with power held by the landholding and military caste) was challenged by revolutionary movements and revolts of the lower/middle classes. The result was a transfer of power between classes (serfdom died, the commercial classes gained hugely in power and influence) and the development of a mercantilist system followed. In its turn this was challenged . . . and so on, at each stage the development being catalysed by a struggle between classes.

Marx claimed that this pattern was inevitable, and had predictive as well as analytic power. He claimed to be able to foretell future syntheses, in order, until at last there would be a society with no distinction of class, no economic inequality, and hence no incentive for anyone to struggle against it. Perfect equality worldwide would imply the end of politics and of history.

This theory claimed to be scientific, and (Marx thought) would be confirmed by the march of history. Like many other scientific hypotheses, it has been falsified by events. Things do not work so simply.
Dialectical
Dialectical materialism is a broad concept usually used to describe the economic and social theories of Karl Marx. It is generally interpreted to mean the history of struggle and conflict for control over material things ("the means of production" in some of Marx's work) among humans. This struggle results in the concentration of economic and social control in the hands of the few (the "bourgeoisie") at the expense of the many (the "proletariat").
Dialectical materialism is the philosophical expression of Marxism and Marxism-Leninism. The name refers to the notion that Marxism is a materialist worldview with a dialectical method. It was developed by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels in the mid-late eighteenth century and further elaborated by later Marxist theorists.
Dialectical materialism holds that the world, including human beings, is "matter in motion" and that progress occurs through struggle. It follows the Hegelian principle of the philosophy of history, namely the development of the thesis into its antithesis, which is in turn superseded by a synthesis that conserves aspects of the thesis and the antithesis while at the same time abolishing them. While retaining Hegel's dialectical method, however, Marx and Engels reacted against Hegel's idealism. Thus, history is not the result of the progressive unfolding of the Spirit, but of class struggle in society, in which economics is the determining factor. Moreover, while quantitative change may be gradual, qualitative change involves an abrupt, violent leap to a higher stage. In society, this means that only violent revolution can bring about the shift from private ownership to socialism and communism which Marx and Engels envisioned.
Dialectical materialism was debated and criticized by various Marxist philosophers, which led to a number of political and philosophical struggles in the Marxist movement in general and in the Comintern in particular. After the success of the Russian Revolution in 1917, the proper interpretation of dialectical materialism became a subject of state policy. The official Soviet version of dialectical materialism, as codified by Josef Stalin was known asdiamat. It became the official philosophy of the Soviet state and had a major influence on Soviet intellectual tradition, which was required to adhere to its teachings as official dogma. Hundreds of millions of people were indoctrinated in the principles of dialectical materialism in the Soviet Union and China during the twentieth century.
Marxist materialism
Like other materialists of their day, Marx and Engels asserted the primacy of the material world: in short, matter precedes thought. Thus, there is no God who conceived the world, but rather humans, who are essentially material beings, conceived God. In addition, there is no spiritual world, heaven, or hell, beyond the material world.
All phenomena in the universe consist of "matter in motion." All things are interconnected and develop in accordance with natural law. The physical world is an objective reality and exists independently of our perception of it. Perception is thus a reflection of the material world in the brain, and the world is truly knowable, when objectively perceived.
The ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought (Karl Marx, Das Kapital, Vol.g" the world. The rising workers' movement, observed by Engels in England and by Marx in France and Germany, was engaging in precisely that transformational revolution.
Historical materialism—the application of dialectical materialism to the analysis of history—thus affords primacy to class struggle over philosophy per se. Philosophy, in fact, is not an objective science but a partisan political act. In this sense, classical materialism—which tended to justify the social status quo—was no better than the outright Idealism of Kantor Hegel's philosophies. "True" philosophy must take the correct position in the class struggle, and the function of Marxist philosophy is to do exact that.
The materialism of Marx and Engels later opened up the way for the Frankfurt School's critical theory, which combined philosophy with the social sciences in an attempt to diagnose the ailments of society. In the later Marxist movement centering on the Soviet Union, however, dialectical materialism would be reduced to the orthodox Marxist theory known asdiamat.
Marxist dialectics
Engels observed three laws of dialectics. They are:
The law of the unity and conflict of opposites
The law of the passage of quantitative changes into qualitative changes
The law of the negation of the negation
The first of these laws was also seen by both Hegel and Lenin as the central feature of a dialectical understanding of things. It has been traced to the ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus. The second is taken by Hegel from Aristotle, and may be traced to the ancient Ionian philosophers (particularly Anaximenes), from whom Aristotle inherited the concept. The third, the negation of the negation, is Hegel's distinct expression. It refers to the idea a thesis generating its antithesis or negation, which is in turn negated by a synthesis.
The principal features of Marxist dialectics are:
1. The universe is not a disconnected mix of things isolated from each other, but an integral whole, with the result that things are interdependent.
2. The natural world, from its smallest to its largest component, is in a state of constant motion.
3. All things contain within themselves internal contradictions, which are the primary cause of motion, change, and development in the world.
4. Development is a process whereby insignificant and imperceptible quantitative changes lead to fundamental, qualitative changes. Qualitative changes, however, do not change gradually, but rapidly and abruptly, in the form of a leap from one state to another.
Historical materialism
Being concerned primarily with history and society rather than philosophy per se, Marx and Engels were particularly concerned with the application of their philosophy to historical and political reality. The result came to be known as historical materialism.
According to this theory, the primitive communism of tribal societies represented the original "thesis" of human development. This generated the antithesis of private ownership and class society. The synthesis—emerging after various stages of historical development such as slavery, feudalism, mercantilism, and capitalism—will be advanced communism, in which the workers own the means of production in an advanced industrialized society. However, just as a chick must break out of the shell which both protects and encases it, the working class must break free from the institutions of repression which capitalist society has created in order to perpetuate itself. Because such qualitative changes are always sudden and violent, this necessitates a violent revolution and the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat as a first step to achieving first socialism, and then the gradual withering away of the state into advanced communism.
According to the Marxist principle of the "partisanship of philosophy," the avowed purpose of this intellectual exercise for Marx and Engels was to create an ideology as a catalyst toward developing revolutionary class consciousness. Indeed, Marx and Engels saw themselves not so much as philosophers but as the voices of a historical inevitability:
It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness (Karl Marx, Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy).

Marx's Historical Materialism is very different from ontological or scientific understanding of "Materialism". Although they are related on some Hegelian level, they are completely different -isms. Do not confuse them.

Regular "Materialism" is the idea that all being is matter. (matter .. material ... materialism.) Modern sciencetakes a very materialistic approach to reality... everything is made up of particles or pieces which follow the laws of science. (Whether that's on the atomic, chemical, biological, ecological, or cosmic levels.) It is interesting in regards to the human condition and human mind because if everything is just particles of matter moving each other based on the laws of science, then everything we do and think can be reduced to a science of cause and effect. This is a big problem if you want to have free will or an immaterial soul.
Marx's materialism
While the "historical" part of historical materialism does not cause a comprehension problem (i.e., it means the present is explained by analysing the past), the term materialism is more difficult. Historical materialism uses "materialism" to make two separate points, where the truth or falsehood of one point does not affect the others.
Firstly, there is metaphysical or philosophical materialism, in which matter-in-motion is considered primary and thought about matter-in-motion, or thought about abstractions, secondary.
Secondly, there is the notion that economic processes form the material base of society upon which institutions and ideas rest and from which they derive. While the economy is the base structure of society, it does not follow that everything in history is determined by the economy, just as every feature of a house is not determined by its foundations. Thus, there is the idea that in the capitalist mode of production the behaviour of actors in the market economy (means of production, distribution and exchange, the relations of production) plays the major role in configuring society.

Marx's "Historical Materialism" also includes a systematic approach to the human condition, but on a different and larger level. Basically, it's the idea that human civilization is developing in a direction, that human politics (and other sciences presumably) are evolving in an upward direction. Specifically, in the Marxist worldview, it is an evolving struggle between the ruling and working classes which will eventually result in a highly technological and urbanized society where the working class can do nothing but topple that very power structure and finally build an equitable and free society.

So, they are different concepts but there are some similarities/compatibilities that can be confusing. An implication of modern scientific "materialism" is that an individual human's behavior can be reduced to laws of cause and effect... and this is a big issue in Psychology today. "Historical Materialism" is the idea that the behavior of an entire civilization tends to follow a direction.
Surplus labour
Surplus labour is a concept used by Karl Marx in his critique of political economy. It means labour performed in excess of the labour necessary to produce the means of livelihood of the worker ("necessary labour"). According to Marxian economics, surplus labour is usually "unpaid labour". Marxian economics regards surplus labour as the ultimate source of capitalist profits.

According to Karl Marx, the evil of capitalism is not the competition it fosters or its supposed lack of concern for the poor. Rather, it is the inevitable problem of surplus labor. To Marx, capitalism was a flawed system because it inevitably deprived the worker of some of the profits of his work. While his theory itself is fundamentally flawed, it is nevertheless the basis for much communist doctrine.
The theory of surplus value/labor is based upon the assumption that the cost of a product is determined by how much labor was required to make it. While that sounds logical, capitalism is based on a different assumption. Capitalists believe that goods are worth whatever someone is willing to pay for them. This seems to fit what we see in the world a little better. Consider the following example. A farmer is tilling his field when his plow hits an enormous diamond partially buried in the ground. He picks it up, takes it into town, and sells it to a jeweler for several thousand dollars. He then returns to his field and works until harvest. Once he has collected his crop, he takes it into town and sells it at the market. According to the communist theory of value, his produce should be much more costly than the diamond because it required much more labor than picking up the diamond. Of course, we know that this is not what we see in the real world.
Nevertheless, Marx built on this assumption to develop his theory of surplus labor. Because Marx believed that goods were only worth whatever labor had created them, he thought that any additional cost was the result of price gouging by wealthy capitalists who exploited the labor of the worker. To his mind, if a worker's labor produce $20 worth of goods in an hour, than he should be paid $20 per hour. If he was not paid the full value of what his labor added to the materials, than he was being robbed of some of his profits. Of course, businesses have other expenses besides labor, but the main problem as Marx saw it, was the question of what to do with profits. Marx believed that there should be no extra profits since the worker should get the entire net profit of what he produced.
What Marx failed to answer was how factories were to be built, how management was to coordinate projects, and how capital was to be raised without creating surplus value. These things have to be done for the worker to be able to do his job. It is not exploitation by capitalists, it is the necessity of running a modern business. Some profits must be set aside for marketing, distributing, research, and management. The owners of the factories have receive a share of what the workers make to be able to keep the factory open. They have to eat too. Marx saw all of that as a form of theft, however, which is why he wanted the state to control the means of production.