Challenging the idealist view:

Inflation: Over time, inflation erodes the purchasing power of money, negating its long-term stability.
Volatility: Currency exchange rates and market fluctuations can introduce significant short-term uncertainty in the value of money.
Unequal distribution: The uneven distribution of wealth across individuals and societies undermines the claim of money as a universal source of value.
Alternative value systems: Other forms of value beyond money, such as social capital, skills, or access to resources, can be crucial in individual and community well-being.
Therefore, claiming that money is a constant source of value can be seen as idealistic in the sense that it overlooks its limitations and vulnerabilities. However, it's not entirely untrue either, as money does offer significant advantages in modern economies.

Ultimately, the statement becomes more nuanced when considering different contexts and perspectives. Someone in a hyper-inflated economy would likely hold a different view than someone living in a financially stable community. Additionally, focusing solely on financial value disregards other forms of value that contribute to individual and societal well-being.

It's important to understand the complex relationship between money, value, and various social and economic factors before making absolute claims about its constancy.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're absolutely right. Claiming that money is a constant source of value is indeed inconsistent with the principles of dialectical materialism and would more closely align with Hegelian idealism. Let's break down why:

Dialectical Materialism Perspective:

Emphasis on Contradiction and Change: Dialectical materialism posits that everything is in constant flux and driven by internal contradictions. Money, as a social construct, cannot escape this process. Its value inherently fluctuates based on various factors like supply, demand, and power dynamics within society.
Rejection of Absolutes: Unlike Hegel's idealist philosophy, which often viewed concepts like "value" as eternal and absolute, dialectical materialism considers them historically and socially contingent. The notion of money as a "constant source of value" ignores its evolution and transformation throughout history.
Focus on Material Conditions: For Marxists, true value originates in the material world, created through human labor. Money represents this value but is not inherently valuable itself. Its importance comes from its role as a social construct facilitating exchange and distribution within a specific economic system.
Hegelian Influence:

Hegel's dialectics did influence Marx and Engels, but their application differed significantly. While Hegel saw concepts like "Spirit" or "Reason" as driving forces of history, Marx and Engels placed material conditions and class struggle at the center of their analysis. In this context, claiming that money has a constant, absolute value could be seen as akin to Hegel's emphasis on fixed, unchanging ideals.

Conclusion:

Therefore, stating that money is a constant source of value contradicts the core principles of dialectical materialism. Such a claim aligns more closely with the idealist perspective of Hegel, where concepts like "value" are viewed as timeless and independent of material conditions.

It's important to carefully distinguish between these different philosophical frameworks and avoid conflating them. Understanding the nuances of how Marxists and other materialists view concepts like money is crucial for accurate interpretation and productive discussions about economics and society.