Hegelian Marxism? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Discourse exclusively on the basis of historical materialist methodology.
Forum rules: No one line posts please. This forum is for discussion based on Marxism, Marxism-Leninism and similar revisions. Critique of topics not based on historical materialism belongs in the general Communism forum.
By Wolfman
#13720724
This isn't relevant to the discussion. Not that matters, I've contradicted Marx therefor I'm wrong.
User avatar
By ozone
#13735434
There are zealous Marxists who "pray unceasingly". My father is one, an NPA. He even organized a movement to establish the first and only church in our village. He solicited funds to build it. Jose Maria Sison prays "unceasingly" among others like Luis Jalandoni, chairman of NDF and a registered Catholic priest.
User avatar
By Vera Politica
#13735622
ozone wrote:There are zealous Marxists who "pray unceasingly". My father is one, an NPA. He even organized a movement to establish the first and only church in our village. He solicited funds to build it. Jose Maria Sison prays "unceasingly" among others like Luis Jalandoni, chairman of NDF and a registered Catholic priest.


This is a topic with Marxism I wish to explore further -- but is one that would take some serious attention. I am under the impression that Marxism, and more specifically Marx himself, was not advocating for metaphysical naturalism but, rather, methodological naturalism within history. There is an important sense in which metaphysical naturalism is largely irrational. In any case, this is not something I can argue for convincingly.
User avatar
By ozone
#13735809
I believe Marxists stand nothing to lose if they pay lip service to Hegelian "spiritualism. Marxists are condemned by majority of the electorate" for dialectical materialism that went hand in hand with invalidating "spiritual fatalism" or those that belonng to the spiritual realm. We all stand to gain. There are no contradictions given that Marx himself was a Jew who quoted the Torah, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" referring to capitalists who portray themselves as philanthropists but were alllegedly guilty of exploitation. I believe that praying or subscribing to one's own Deity is a simple matter that does not conflict with Marxism. I do not know why mere mention of the word God infuriates some people like my comrades at Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas who scold me for them.[I have no experience with any member of CPP-NPA, cross fingers]. Does one have to go loggerheads at this. (I am not referring to anybody in this forum who are all civil,, polite and good)
Last edited by ozone on 18 Jun 2011 17:18, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Vera Politica
#13735919
ozone wrote:I believe Marxists stand nothing to lose if they pay lip service to Hegelian "spiritualism


I think Marxists have a lot to lose by paying lip service to Hegelianism: Marxism itself.
Remember, the central component that Marx rejected from Hegelianism was idealism -- the notion that all of nature, being, etc. follows from or supervenes on rationality which can be explicated through thought alone. Social history was seen as the progressive, teleological revelation of reason and rationality within social affairs. Reason, for Hegel, was somewhat of a spirit guiding the changes in human history by revealing itself within the affairs of the world. (I apologize to all Hegel scholars for botching and misrepresenting Hegelianism).

Marxism, instead, is the incorporation of the philosophical assumptions from the framework of science (that is the epistemological assumptions of methodological naturalism) into the study of society and history from which modern social science was born. There are no supernatural forces operating in social history (assumption) so we must formulate a theory to account for social change. Historical materialism, combined with dialectical materialism, provided a theory that satisfied the presuppositions of methodological naturalism and explains historical change. It also did something else: it predicted social and historical changes -- which is what made it scientific. Most of the prediction were wrong (some panned out well) and, thus, ad hoc stipulations by Lenin and others have turned classical Marxism into a degenerative research programme and, largely, pseudo-pscience. The point, now, is to reform Marxism so that it is progressive again without abandoning the kernel of Marxist theory.
Last edited by Vera Politica on 18 Jun 2011 17:25, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By ozone
#13735930
As I said we got nothing to lose if we blend some aspects of Hegelian doctrines with Marxism as long as we stick to historical materialism and dialectical as measuring instrument in interpreting history. The mere fact of inviting the Pope to Cuba is a gesture of Hegelian interpretation of history. Marxists can ill-afford alienating the masses by insisting on pure dialectics without concessions. It's like forcing yourselves on the masses who cannot help but turn to an incorporeal Being as food for their souls..Kang Sheng, chief intelligence officer of Mao turned to Buddhism on his last days at the infirmary. He died of lung cancer. His was strickened conscience which any normal being possesses. Why run afoul with a good god like Buddha whose only intention was to teach mankind goodness?
User avatar
By ozone
#13735938
It is common knowledge that some of the masses are alienated with dialectical atheism. I too would invite the Pope to the PHilippines like what the good Fidel Castro did if I become Chairman of the CPP-NPA as a gesture of Hegelian religious freedom and democracy. Why would I impose atheism which Marx incites in some of his basic writings. Hegelian thought can co-exist side by side with Marxism. Hegel was neither pro-capitalist nor anti-communist.
User avatar
By Vera Politica
#13735978
ozone wrote:It is common knowledge that some of the masses are alienated with dialectical atheism. I too would invite the Pope to the PHilippines like what the good Fidel Castro did if I become Chairman of the CPP-NPA as a gesture of Hegelian religious freedom and democracy. Why would I impose atheism which Marx incites in some of his basic writings. Hegelian thought can co-exist side by side with Marxism. Hegel was neither pro-capitalist nor anti-communist


This still does not show how inviting the Pope to Cuba is "a gesture of Hegelian interpretation of history".

Now you speak of "a gesture of Hegelian religious freedom and democracy".

You are also assuming that theism implies Hegelianism. This is not the case.
User avatar
By ozone
#13736026
If you stubbornly resist blending Hegelian thought with dialectical materialism and historical materialism leaving the good one in place and discarding the bad ones, then I cannot do anything. Fidel Castro acknowledged such blending by inviting the Pope to Cuba in the 1990s. What do you think was he thinking? Why do you think he did that? This is my last post in this thread. We're getting nowhere with your redundant questions.

Yet I admit you have a point in that when laymen say "communists do not believe in God", the usual answer is that "we (CPP-NPA) also believe in God or that "religion is not an issue..or, we do not delve in those matters, as a member of Marxist Leninist group has said.
User avatar
By Vera Politica
#13736573
Ozone wrote:If you stubbornly resist blending Hegelian thought with dialectical materialism and historical materialism leaving the good one in place and discarding the bad ones, then I cannot do anything. Fidel Castro acknowledged such blending by inviting the Pope to Cuba in the 1990s. What do you think was he thinking? Why do you think he did that? This is my last post in this thread. We're getting nowhere with your redundant questions.


I am sorry but you have done nothing to show that you understand Hegelianism (or Marxism). All I have asked is for you to give me a brief explanation of the connection between Hegelianism and inviting the Pope. It is not a redundant question, it is a simple question which could be answered by someone who was speaking clearly about a topic.

Hegelianism and historical materialism are incompatible.
User avatar
By ozone
#13736602
You are the one professing ignorance of Hegel's Spirit, Divine rule by Monarchy and The Family. His doctrines reflect the kind of teachings that Christian philosophy imparts. They are contrary to Marx's dialectical materialism invalidating these theories or philosophy. Marx bluntly opposed anything that has something to do with "Hegel's Spirit", anything spiritual he contested is contrary to dialectics. He opposed divine rule and monarchy where authority stems from lineage. Hegel's dialectics also has its own historical features but was based on Christianity, the Family, Monarchy and the Spirit, etc. Marx's dialectical history imitated them not on the basis of monarchical or Christian history but based on modes on production which existed from the time of the cavemen to present-day capitalism. Now what has the Pope got to do with it. The Pope is Christian. If he were to choose between Hegelian dialectics and Marx's historical materialism, he would choose the former. As I asked you, why do you think Fidel Castro invited the Pope during the 1990's. NO other reasons but to blend Hegelian dialectics and Marx's atheistic historical materialism. You think on a higher level but that kind of level of thinking is not in touch with reality anymore. Your insistence on contradicting blending Hegel's dialectics with Marxism not only alienate the people but it was the main reason why the Soviet Union imploded (based on readings written by top communist theoreticians of Ukraine and Russia together with the Metropolitan of Kiev). Either that you unconsciously or consciously are alienating the masses or you intend to influence communist parties to establish a dictatorial regime abolishing religion or anything that is related to the "Hegel's Spirit", Divine rule, Hegel or Hegel's "The Family". Why do you think Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas included me as one member of its Central Committee if I do not know my Marxism or rather if I am a dicatatorial communist.

To prove ideological or Marxist purity, read my essay in Letters, CPGB, entitled "Long Live Joe" under the pseudonym, Angel Formoso. There I can prove my ideological or doctrinal purity.
User avatar
By USB
#13808582
Hegel only perceived what was in the inner senses. Only by the appearance of things and not their truth. But because the appearance is false, therefore it is unreal. "Only the true is real"-Hegel.

Hegel played the role of philospher-pope. His Philosophy of the Right was subjectively inspired. It was because he belongs to the Prussian bureaucracy. He inserted Biblical scriptures in his teachings which only the rich can 'comprehend' given that the teachings tilt in their favour. (The Master knows better than the servant; I will teach you profitable acts). All his teachings were 'reeking of the vilest sycophancy' which deluded the masses because 'he behaved accordingly' unlike the rebels Che and Castro who were blacklisted and notorious. He was also buried with state honors. Try to find if there was a strong disparity between their deeds while they were or are on earth. They seem like normal people with no personal histories of massacres and terroristic deeds. Compare them with America which bombed Hiroshima, ex-Chairman of the Communist Part of the Philippines who condoned the massacre of families in Digos and Usama bin Laden

If you people reflexively side with these cops you[…]

YOOOO! Maoist Rebel News! He's still around! I[…]

It's been awhile since I've posted anything here, […]

The Wuhan virus—how are we doing?

@Sivad I must have missed it. Please provide […]