Hegalianism

What do you mean?

"it is impossible completely to understand Marx’s Capital, and especially its first chapter, without having thoroughly studied and understood the whole of Hegel’s Logic. Consequently, half a century later none of the Marxists understood Marx!!" - Lenin (Collected Works, Vol. 38, p. 180)

Can you go slightly more in-depth? How did they miss the point? Why are their reasons understandable? Why are Stirner's not?

read hegel to understand marx, not the other way around

A Hegelian can intake Marxism in the form of its genuinely critical and dialectical aspects, such as Capital. Levine and Winfield are Hegelians which love Capital but disregard Marx's other things.

If there is any revolutionary theoretical potential to be drawn from Hegel, the easy targets of choice for finding them seem to be the Phenomenology and Philosophy of History.
The Phil of History is generally ignored these days as rather distasteful due to its positive "idealist" account against the "materialist" conception of history. Because of this, the Phenomenology is obviously preferred due to its negative dialectical progress of dissolution of what is by internally self-destructive contradictions.

This is particularly seen with favor by Hegelian Marxists who take modern capitalism to be exactly such a negative dialectical structure that is bound to implode. The theory of Capital, however, does not match this form of brute contradiction and implosion, but rather shows a positive dialectical construction of ever increasing self-generated logical mediations which can take care of contradictions. Unlike in the Phenomenology where dialectics collapsed and required a new conception to bring out what was true in prior inadequate conceptions and move development forward, the theory of capital safely carries its logical contradictions onward and positively builds upon them without discarding prior determinations.

Unlike how Feudalism advances over slavery not by integrating it in a further mediating system, but by getting rid of the categories and replacing them, capital's advances retain prior determinations in full though not as absolute. What then are we to make of Marx's claims that communism will follow capitalism as a full systematic negation with new categories that take up and build on its positive aspects while leaving behind its negatives? Either capital is a logical aberration that somehow manages to carry out a positive dialectic while still ultimately succumbing to an ultimately negative dialectic resulting from an arbitrary irrational positing of factors, or Marx's speculative hope that communism is the >necessary logical< conclusion of capitalism is misguided.

If capital has a positive Hegelian dialectic that merely lacks the proper mediating structures, and thus against our distaste there is in truth a positive rationality to capital that must be saved in full even if limited in domain, then I think there is really a strong question to be put to Hegelian Marxism regarding the legitimacy of their conceptual mix. It is based on these questions that I think communists like Cyril Smith find it a >necessity< to deny Marx any allegiance to Hegelianism or dialectics beyond a historical meeting of content form; a meeting in which the bizarre claim must be made that Hegel's logic is >only< legitimately fit for the historical moment of capitalist society and does not provide any knowledge of anything but such.

Doing that with charity does the opposite, it leads to seeing how little Marx understood of Hegel for a long time. You should read Marx to understand Marx. I mean that a Hegelian can intake Marxism, but a Marxist cannot intake Hegelianism.
I mean to ipp

This won't get a response as A.W has not read the philosophers you have listed, however he might now claim to of read these people but will be unable to go more in-depth.

Kierkegaard says Hegel dismisses the existential individual, however Hegel does not directly deal with the existential individual because he admits it as a pure individual aspect of existence which can never be made philosophical sense of. It is not that it does not matter or cannot be spoken of, but that Hegel thinks philosophy cannot conceptually speak of such things by its universal nature.

I haven't read Feurbach, but the little I know hints that he had a strong reaction against Hegel's theological tendency (one that was real) and his idealist rationalist tendency which proceeds in explaining in the inverse of empirical experience of individuals.

Schopenhauer hated Hegel on personal grounds and just used that to jump to clearly stupid philosophic grounds. This hatred comes from his inferiority complex, something he brought on himself. It is ironic that Hegel is the reason Schopenhauer got a PHD in the first place.

clyp.it/mbjukpye

Stirner goes wrong right from the beginning in which he posits the individual ego as the absolute of his philosophy.

What's wrong with having the individual ego as the absolute of a philosophy? (please be easy on me i'm a philosophy n00b)

Stirner misunderstands freedom as lack of limits, but Hegel shows that freedom is constructed out of limits.

What are your views on actual idealism?

empyreantrail.wordpress.com/2017/04/12/the-ideal-in-absolute-idealism/

Hegel more ore less started the philosophical trend of seeing history and the world as machines, computers with operating systems. Marx went completely overboard with this.

You misunderstand Stirner. Read the final parts of the Ego and His Own and its relation towards the the begin and his responce to the critics. For Further insight check the kyoto school their thoughts on Stirner.

How about no?

I don't care about Stirner and what he may actually have claimed. Tell me how his ego is not an individual asocial and ahistorical abstraction and I might care.

Reading Hegel can help you with young Marx, but for his later stuff like Capital it is unnecessary.

get out of here, althusser, that´ completely wrong.

Capital is based off of Hegelian logic and Marx never dropped Hegel. He even began to reuse hegelian language later on

It's the inverse. Early Marx is farthest from Hegel and close to Feuerbach, later Marx is closest to Hegel.

It is actually hegel turned on his head.

Feurbach also inverts Hegel, but he explains religious phenomenon through abstract human resoning (this is vagualy correct), unlike marx who does it trough social activity.

For marx the man changes himself trough society therefore there can not be abstract being from which you derive his principles, hes always in concrete circumstances (place, time, particular stage of historical development).

Quotes from thesis on feurbach
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm

not an argument

German Ideology chapter 1 is a good albeit very short introduction to the philosophical situation at the time, as are the manuscripts of 1844, and a decent introduction for historical materialism

I'm not even sure why I'm responding to you, I know you're a contrarian edgelord

No, I meant the "actual idealism" of fascist philosopher Giovanni Gentile. As far as I can tell he tries too hard to be the anti-Marx

Ok so the consensus seems to be Hegel is important for understanding Marx. Does anyone have any resources for diving into Hegalian thought?

The Empyrean Trail blog by A.W.

archive.org/stream/pdfy-xPoejl7ruL9jyW3_/KOJEVE introduction to the reading of hegel_djvu.txt

...

Is easy to understand Marx, just hide all the other factors that influenced history and say "yeah x thing happened because hte kapital and because of materialist dialectics".
Besides his terrible analysis of history, in my view, he had a good critique to 1800's liberal capitalism, what we call today as savage capitalism

His analysis of history was bad, but historical materialism is still a sound method tbh.

Yes but the analysis of "Only capital/organized desires that move history" is something that since I started reading Marx made me laugh.
For me materialism ignores a lot of other factors but gave light to better analysis of history and the historical process, for what I perceive is not only desire for things that move history is the interdependence of forceideasfinancial power
force+ideas can ignore capital if the ideal is strong
an idea+financial power can ignore force because it can buy it
but force and financial power cannot coexists because it will easily lose the purpose of what they are doing and the usual idea that complements them is pragmatism

You sure you read Marx? Because he doesn't say that. Marx acknowledges that ideas and ideology have a power of their own, historical materialism merely served to describe how our social relations are shaped in relation to the productive forces (which again produce our material reality and so on).

Lenin could not have been more wrong. I occasionally read Capital to my wife as a bedtime story, and she picks it up. Incidentally, for reasons I do not quite comprehend reading the book to someone else makes it much easier to follow. Stuff that would normally require a couple rereads is digestible on the first go when reading aloud.

Yes I read, but since it was a long time ago and now I'm into other thinkers and other subjects I might have forgotten or antagonized some things. I read him some years ago, 5 or 6, so pardon me if I forgot some of his theory, not on purpose

What the actual fuck

...

>You will never have a qt Marxist wife to read Capital to in bed as you both snuggle under a blanket and stockpile arms and ammunition for the revolution.
I didn't want this feel.

How accurate is this?

youtube.com/watch?v=Qp4CZrOLN9Q

Alex Callinicos on what Marx learned from Hegel.

It's terrible. As the comments note with some examples, he doesn't get Hegel.

Listen to AW. He's an expert on not getting Hegel.

heh

It's one of those "I want to be more involved in your life" things that old married people do. Seriously, though, find someone to read Capital to. It makes it 100% easier to understand.

Can you make a Youtube channel or some shit? It's much easier for me to digest info as images and sound than as text

...