[Wolfman]

I think this might be the right place for this. If nothing else, I think it'll keep the libertarians away.

Anyways, this is something I've been thinking about off and on for quite awhile, essentially, was Marx a Marxist or a Hegelian? I have two lines of thought about this question:

1. A friend of mine (who seems to have read everything by or about Marx, Hegel, Kant and Lenin) once told me that Malcolm X probably didn't believe his own rhetoric, that he was trying to get blacks to wake up from the general positions they had been pushed into, so that someone else could come along later and get the now aware racial minorities to work towards equality. So, he probably wouldn't have actually wanted violence to attain racial equality, and most of what he actually said he probably didn't believe. And even if he did actually want violence and did believe what he said, he probably would have been quite happy with the way things went following his death leading up to today (with some wiggle room).

2. A big thing with Hegel (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the whole of human history is a series of different periods, where one necessarily creates the next, the up tightness of the 40s and the 50s created the lose moralled 60s and early 70s, created the re-up-tightedness of the 80s, created the 'eh' of the 90s and so on. And ideas are in a relatively similar situation: one idea (the thesis) necessarily creates it's opposite (the antithesis), and the two eventually compromise (creating the synthesis), creating the next 'one idea' (the new thesis), which could be modified by something new altogether, or be modified by the original Thesis or Antithesis. Now, when Marx started writing about Communism he said the he was going to turn Hegel on his ear, and called Hegel and Idealist (which actually is true, but whatever). And Marx's basic modification was to go "This is sort of true, but all of human history is the history of class struggle, which will necessarily create the next generation: Socialism (and later Communism), and that'll be it".
A Hegelian could come along and say "Haha, this actually proves Hegel right! Capitalism was the Thesis, and it necessarily created Communism, it's Antithesis! And look, you can see a Synthesis in SFR Yugoslavia and Albania (with a Communist leaning), and the Welfare States of Europe (leaning more towards the Thesis). And you can further see the Aufheben in the Right Wing Reforms of Reagan and Thatcher (which was the Synthesis sublating with the Thesis). Haha, this actually proves Hegel's Philosophy of History correct, Muwahaha!"*
Massive oversimplification of Hegelian and Marxist philosophy aside, could Marx have been more of a Hegelian then he claimed, and was aiming to take Marxist Communism and Capitalism to eventually replace both of them with some kind of Left Libertarianism or Democratic Socialism?

Thoughts?

Don't expect me back for a while, sorry if there are any questions)
* I'm tired, I get screwy when tired.

[Vera Politica]

Marx was certainly influenced by Hegel as was any student in Germany at the time. Hegel was a paramount figure within German idealism -- the philosophical movement that essentially dominated most of continental Europe. However, Marx's project was not Hegelian in any sense. Unlike Hegel, Marx sought to make social science science -- in particular, Marx wanted to make the study of history a scientific one. Marx would, like Hegel, think that there is a triadic development in history (thesis - antithesis - synthesis) which, essentially, basically means that the development of society proceeds via contradictions and the resolutions of those contradictions. Marx, however, would find the underlying contradictions in the material reality of society and history -- in class, physical production, etc. Marx was, in this sense, a naturalist when it came to social history. Hegel was not a naturalist believing that history unfolded through the progressive realization of Reason toward its full realization (in the authoritarian state of Prussia -- Hegel was certainly a state-apologist but it is unclear how much he agreed with the current state of Prussia). Moreover, Hegel's theory of history, quite unlike Marx's, was teleological and this is a crucial break between Marx and Hegel (similar to the break Darwin's natural history makes from Aristotelian, natural teleology). This is what Marxists mean when they claim they did for 'social history' was Darwin had done for 'natural history'.

Massive oversimplification of Hegelian and Marxist philosophy aside, could Marx have been more of a Hegelian then he claimed, and was aiming to take Marxist Communism and Capitalism to eventually replace both of them with some kind of Left Libertarianism or Democratic Socialism?

Communism is the resolved condition of class antagonisms -- the point at which social history ends (that is, class driven development ends). Socialism is the intermediary state where the working class uses the state apparatus to dismantle all classes (but it is still, itself, a period of class antagonism).

[KurtFF8]

I listened to an interesting lecture by Richard Wolff about Louis Althusser (they can be founded here in three parts: http://www.4shared.com/folder/g43LGiai/UMass.html ) where he argued that Althusser's view of the Marx-Hegel relationship was quite different from the standard. The standard being that Marx simple "reversed Hegel" or instead of looking at the "ideal" or "reasoned" aspects of history, Marx pointed to the material. This of course is similar to the "reverse" relationship between Aristotle and Plato (which is itself also oversimplified). According to Wolff, Althusser argued that Marx didn't quite reverse the Hegelian argument, but pointed to a flaw in the relationship between Ideas --> Material Reality itself ("eliminating the -->"). Thus, Althusser claimed that Marx broke quite sharply with Hegel, but not just in the "reversal" kind of way, and VP pointed out some important aspects of this break.

[Wolfman]

Communism is the resolved condition of class antagonisms -- the point at which social history ends (that is, class driven development ends). Socialism is the intermediary state where the working class uses the state apparatus to dismantle all classes (but it is still, itself, a period of class antagonism).

I may have been unclear, I am aware of this (loosely, and in an oversimplified way), but what I'm asking is that while this is what Marx was saying, could his intention have been different? Marx was writing about Capitalism (the Thesis in a Hegelian Historical Triad), which he said would eventually be replaced with Socialism/Communism (Antithesis in the same relationship). But, could he have been more Hegelian then he claimed, and was aiming for the creation of some kind of Left Libertarianism or Democratic Socialism (the Synthesis)?

[Potemkin]

Marx was writing about Capitalism (the Thesis in a Hegelian Historical Triad), which he said would eventually be replaced with Socialism/Communism (Antithesis in the same relationship).

The thesis is not capitalism but the bourgeoise, and the antithesis is not socialism or communism but the proletariat. Both thesis and antithesis exist simultaneously within the capitalist system, and their struggle (their contradiction) will eventually give rise to the synthesis of Communism (via a transition stage of socialism). This will end historical progress based on class antagonism. There will therefore be no further synthesis (based on class struggle) beyond Communism.

[Wolfman]

OK, I could understand if I was unclear the first time, but now you're just being obtuse. In the Hegelian Dialectical Triad (HEGELIAN), the Thesis is Capitalism, the Antithesis is Socialism/Communism and the Synthesis (which seems to have taken hold) is some kind of Democratic Socialism/Left Libertarianism. This is true from a HEGELIAN stand point, what I'm asking is what Marx was seeking was more in the line of what actually happened, then what he said was going to happen?

[KurtFF8]

Could you be more clear about what you mean when you say that the "thesis is Capitalism"?

There is some work on this within the Marxist literature about contradictions between modes of production (for example, there is much debate about this in the Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism debate)

[Monsieur Psychosis]

Marx wasn't being tactical if that's what you mean. (Incidentally Malcolm X wasn't, either--your friend sounds like a liberal apologist.) If he was being tactical he did a very strange job of it since he made some fierce and compelling arguments against left-libertarianism that make it very hard to believe he was a closet left-libertarian all along!

Interpreting capitalism and communism as thesis and antithesis is painting in broader and more nebulous strokes than Marx was about. Marx talked about contradictions within capitalism--e.g. between the dispossesion of the proletariat and capital's need for consumer demand, between the command-economy structure of modern production and the market economy that governs consumption--and claimed that, while these and other contradictions were temporarily resolved by crisis, they would be resolved long-term by communism.

Marx deduced communism from capitalism. I don't understand how you can do the same with "democratic socialism" or "left-libertarianism" from communism. What contradictions in communism would lead to its transformation into such a "synthesis"? By what mechanism would it necessarily follow that the transformation of capitalism into communism would lead to the transformation of communism into democratic socialism?

[Wolfman]

Could you be more clear about what you mean when you say that the "thesis is Capitalism"?

I would, but I'm not sure what part is unclear.

Marx wasn't being tactical if that's what you mean.

So, you know what Marx was thinking? That's interesting, you know, I've always wondered what Marx's favorite color was. Was is red?

If he was being tactical he did a very strange job of it since he made some fierce and compelling arguments against left-libertarianism that make it very hard to believe he was a closet left-libertarian all along!

How many American politicians harp against homosexuality and get caught in the men's room at the airport trying to pick up guys?

Interpreting capitalism and communism as thesis and antithesis is painting in broader and more nebulous strokes than Marx was about.

That's fine, since I'm talking about Hegel's Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis system, not Marxs.

Marx deduced communism from capitalism.

Which fits within Hegelian thought.

I don't understand how you can do the same with "democratic socialism" or "left-libertarianism" from communism.

Simple: you're not understanding me. And I'm fairly sure I've been clear enough in this thread that you're being obtuse.

What contradictions in communism would lead to its transformation into such a "synthesis"?

The fact that Marx's own logic makes it impossible to attain? (all of history is the history of class struggle, communism is the end of class struggle, therefor, communism is the end of history)

By what mechanism would it necessarily follow that the transformation of capitalism into communism would lead to the transformation of communism into democratic socialism?

Who said anything about Capitalism -> Socialism -> Communism -> Democratic Socialism? Under a Hegelian system it could go Capitalism -> Crisis between Capitalism and Socialism -> Democratic Socialism.

[KurtFF8]

I would, but I'm not sure what part is unclear

Well to start, that sentence I was quoting doesn't make much sense. His "thesis" wasn't capitalism, but his analysis was about the capitalist mode of production.

The fact that Marx's own logic makes it impossible to attain?

How does Marx's own logic make it impossible? His entire project is devoted to making it a possibility, including the logic he develops in all of his writing.

[Wolfman]

Well to start, that sentence I was quoting doesn't make much sense. His "thesis" wasn't capitalism, but his analysis was about the capitalist mode of production.

OK, this is irritating me: In HEGELIAN dialectical triad the Thesis is Capitalism.

Just as a general thought: why do I have to keep repeating this?

How does Marx's own logic make it impossible? His entire project is devoted to making it a possibility, including the logic he develops in all of his writing.

It's the part you left out, the part about Communism being the end of human history.

[KurtFF8]

OK, this is irritating me: In HEGELIAN dialectical triad the Thesis is Capitalism.

Just as a general thought: why do I have to keep repeating this?

Perhaps you could elaborate on how the Thesis is Capitalism, i.e. explain it.

It's the part you left out, the part about Communism being the end of human history.

I'm not sure how that goes against the Marxist logic in anyway way. He says that history is the history of class struggle. He of course has a footnote right at this point in the manifesto where he describes that he is indeed just dealing with the history of class societies. I see no inconsistency here: if he's dealing with the kind of history where conflicting classes are prime, and Communism is a classless society: how would that not be the end of that particular history (by definition)

[Wolfman]

Perhaps you could elaborate on how the Thesis is Capitalism, i.e. explain it

It was the prevailing line of thought, major ideology, the thesis.

I'm not sure how that goes against the Marxist logic in anyway way. He says that history is the history of class struggle. He of course has a footnote right at this point in the manifesto where he describes that he is indeed just dealing with the history of class societies. I see no inconsistency here: if he's dealing with the kind of history where conflicting classes are prime, and Communism is a classless society: how would that not be the end of that particular history (by definition)

I didn't it's a contradiction, I said it is Marx's logic showing that Communism is impossible. And if you define history as class struggle, and something as the end of class struggle, then that thing is the end of history.

[KurtFF8]

And if you define history as class struggle, and something as the end of class struggle, then that thing is the end of history.

And that is exactly what Marx claims: Communism would be the end of history (if history is defined as class struggle). How does that make it impossible?

[Wolfman]

Saying something is the end of history sounds remarkably like saying it's going to never happen.

[KurtFF8]

I suppose if you misread his point you could see it that way, but I don't think that was even close to what he meant by that. As I pointed out earlier, if you follow the logic of the argument: history has been about class struggle (history of civilization thus far, from agriculture onward), and Communism would be a classless society. Thus it would be the end of history as we know it. That last part that I put in italics is essentially what was meant. Not that "the world would end" or it would "be impossible" like you're claiming.

I think your reading of Marx doesn't quite fit within his works, and I have never heard anyone attempt to make that reading before.

[Wolfman]

You make it sound like I have read Marx.

[KurtFF8]

Perhaps you shouldn't talk about how his own logic defeats itself if you aren't even familiar with his arguments?

[Wolfman]

I'm familiar with his arguments, I just haven't read anything he's written.

[KurtFF8]

Well at least in this particular case, you seem to be unfamiliar with what he meant by the "end of history" and seem to be applying it in an erroneous way.