Did Marx butcher Hegel's dialectic or no?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Introduction to Philosophy / Factual Issues / Books » Did Marx butcher Hegel's dialectic or no? » Did Marx butcher Hegel's dialectic or no?

Did Marx butcher Hegel's dialectic or no?

Page: 1 2

Did Marx butcher Hegel's dialectic or no?

quickly
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 29, 2007

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 233

Posted 09/25/09 - 09:22 PM:	#11
@ Tobias: perhaps I have an idiosyncratic reading of Marx, and much of my opinion is based on Capital, but I don't think that Marx's application of the dialectic results in philosophical soothsaying: and that the two aims of Marx's texts (one, advocating a political program; two, analyzing the causes and motivations of societies) get confused - sometimes by Marx himself, but oftentimes by his followers. Capital's final chapters contain the following remark: [Chp. 32, P. VI] "...capitalist production begets, with the inexorability of a natural process, its own negation. This is the negation of the negation...it does indeed establish individual property on the basis of the achievements of the capitalist era...co-operation and the possession in common of the land and the means of production produced by labor itself." I think this quote is important because Marx doesn't argue that the supercession of capitalism occurs by nature but by agents and that capitalism's downfall is predicted because of previously expounded structural flaws; two, I think that the different social forms and modes of production Marx analyzes are interesting because they were uncanny at the time he wrote. Much of the work seems trivial now, but it's obvious that Marx is piecing together different forms of labor and work, trying to analyze them conceptually, and understand how they are working; but also he argues that only after certain stages of development does their nature become apparent, because fortuitous circumstances have aligned to allow them to be known. I think Marx tends toward prophecy, but I think he uses the dialectic incorrectly in these instances. And perhaps Althusser's reformulation is more sufficient. But whatever the case, I don't think Capital indicates that an eventual outcome will occur because of the movement of a force of reality, but because of the socioeconomic structures that have arisen by their actors. Sorry, this is too terse and too lengthy all at the same time. I don't have an opinion formed on what Marx thinks about the dialectic either. He expounds Capital as one, but he oftentimes seems tongue-in-cheek when using it in an argument (and I can't tell whether the above is as such, or serious).
Sunt bona, sunt quaedam mediocria, sunt mala plura quae legis hic; aliter non fit philosophyforums.com (cf., Martial, Epigrammata I.XVI)

Tobias
Metaphysical exorcist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Location: Just rub the mirror

Total Topics: 58
Total Posts: 5576

Posted 09/29/09 - 02:19 AM:	#12
I think this quote is important because Marx doesn't argue that the supercession of capitalism occurs by nature but by agents and that capitalism's downfall is predicted because of previously expounded structural flaws; two, I think that the different social forms and modes of production Marx analyzes are interesting because they were uncanny at the time he wrote. Much of the work seems trivial now, but it's obvious that Marx is piecing together different forms of labor and work, trying to analyze them conceptually, and understand how they are working; but also he argues that only after certain stages of development does their nature become apparent, because fortuitous circumstances have aligned to allow them to be known. But from this it doesn't seem Marx does anything different with the dialectic at all. He uses the dialectic as a prism to view societies through. Well, that seems alright with me. But what he is than doing is sociology and not philosophy. I think that is fine, the dialectic only tells us that a certain concept as within itself certain limitations that causes it to be insufficient, hence negated by another concept that proposes a different view and lays the finger on the incompletelness of the first concept. When MArx uses the dialectic to show how you can look at capitalism, that it has a structral flaw which will cause it to be opposed by an opposite concept, than he is not reformulating the dialectic. I thought Marx had bigger plans though, but I might be wrong. I thought he wanted to say that the dialectic shouldn't be used conceptually, but materially. The difference it seems to me is that Hegel employs the dialectic to show how our conceptual framework is build up, while Marx shows that it may also be used as a tool to analyse social systems. Well more power to both of them regards, Tobi
"The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you"

treemanshope
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 11, 2009

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 267

Posted 10/02/09 - 10:11 AM:	#13
Marx related dialectical ideas to the economic and political conditions of culture which I think is a good thing. They dont have to be rules enforced by the revolutionary guard, but simply perspectives of political compassion. I think we can take a little Marx with our Plato, our Buddha or what ever.
The words of peace are just words, it is man that gives them flesh. Bring peace into the material world. Or, bring something else. treemanshope.

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.