Is reading Hegel necessary in understanding Marxism?

[mollymae]

I know that Hegel influenced Marx very much, so I was wondering if it would be a good idea to start with some of his works, which I have never looked into. If so, what in particular would be necessary to read?

[Madvillainy]

Well you certainly don't need to read up on hegel as a prerequisite to understanding marxism, and unless your really interested in it, I wouldn't bother. I've never read Hegel myself but I can only imagine how boring and pointless it is.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Only if you want a headache.:(

But, as far as understanding Marxism is concerned, it will only hinder you.

[mollymae]

Okay, good, that's what I wanted to hear, haha.
thanks!

[¿Que?]

I think Lenin said it was necessary to read a particular one of Hegel's works to truly understand a particular one of Marx's. But I can't remember which ones at the moment. I think it was Logic and Capital, respectively.

[Muzk]

Didn't read a single word of Hegel. Havn't encountered any problems yet.

[bailey_187]

It may help you to understand dialectics better. I wouldnt recommend reading Hegel though. You could try reading one of the "beginners guide to" books about Hegel if you want to get some basic understanding of his ideas.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Only if you want to "understand" dialectics.

So I'd say no, don't bother.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Only if you want to "understand" dialectics.

So I'd say no, don't bother.

I would say the opposite, due to how dialectics is an important element under Marxist-thought, in which helps guide an understanding of your surroundings, whether it be political manners or anything else, as a Marxist analysis.

[Zanthorus]

I would say the opposite, due to how dialectics is an important element under Marxist-thought, in which helps guide an understanding of your surroundings, whether it be political manners or anything else, as a Marxist analysis.

I would say the main "dialectical" elements in Marx's thought come more from Feuerbach than Hegel.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I would say the main "dialectical" elements in Marx's thought come more from Feuerbach than Hegel.

It wouldn't hurt to learn from both when trying to get a diverse understanding of materialist dialectics, but other than dialectics, Hegal will only make you pull your hair out your socket.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I would say the opposite, due to how dialectics is an important element under Marxist-thought, in which helps guide an understanding of your surroundings, whether it be political manners or anything else, as a Marxist analysis.

There's a whole current of Marxism that rejects dialectics, though.

[Zanthorus]

It wouldn't hurt to learn from both when trying to get a diverse understanding of materialist dialectics, but other than dialectics, Hegal will only make you pull your hair out your socket.

Meh, the only reason to study Hegel for an understanding of what Marx was on about is if you want to know exactly what Marx was attempting to critique in the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right and Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of a Whole. Most of the understanding of Hegelianism you need to interpret Marx can be found in introductions to Hegel's writing. Feuerbach on the other hand has much more direct links to Marx:



§ 59

The single man in isolation possesses in himself the essence of man neither as a moral nor as a thinking being. The essence of man is contained only in the community, in the unity of man with man – a unity, however, that rests on the reality of the distinction between “I” and “You”.


§ 60

Solitude means being finite and limited, community means being free and infinite. For himself alone, man is just man (in the ordinary sense); but man with man – the unity of “I” and “You” – that is God.


§ 61

The absolute philosopher said, or at least thought of himself – naturally as a thinker and not as a man – “vérité c'est moi,”, in a way analogous to the absolute monarch claiming, “L’État c‘est moi,” or the absolute God claiming, “L’être c’est moi.” The human philosopher, on the other hand, says: Even in thought, even as a philosopher, I am a man in togetherness with men.


§ 62

The true dialectic is not a monologue of the solitary thinker with himself. It is a dialogue between “I” and “You”.

[Vendetta]

I've never really read Hegel, and I understand Marx just fine.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I've never really read Hegel, and I understand Marx just fine.

Well see, that's just the thing. One really doesn't need to read Hegal to understand Marxism. Hegal just inspired Marx, which doesn't necessarily mean he's the blueprint of Marxist thought, itself.

[28350]

Is reading Hegel necessary to understand Marxism?
No.
Will reading Hegel help you understand the more theoretical side of Marxism?
Yes.

[chegitz guevara]

How do the people who haven't read Hegel know that they understand Marxism just fine? You think under understand Marxism just fine, but maybe you're wrong.

If you want to deepen your understand of Marx and what he wrote, reading a little bit of Hegel, say, The Philosophy of Right, will definitely help. It's not Hegel's answers you need to be concerned with, so much as his methods, which Marx uses in Capital.

Anyway, Marx didn't get the dialectic from Feuerbach. He got materialism from Feuerbach, but he criticized Feuerbach's materialism as being mechanical and lifeless. He combined Hegel's dialectic with Feuerbach's materialism to come up with his own historical materialism.

[epsilon8998]

I don't think reading Hegel's actual works is necessary to understanding him. However, it is enormously helpful if you're trying to get a better grasp of Marx's logic so that you can form your own arguments around it, and to try to figure out how Marx made his own conclusions.

I've never read Hegel myself, since I've heard that trying only leads to migraines and thoughts of suicide. But I have read other peoples interpretations, summaries and own thoughts about his works and logic.

I suggest the books "The Algebra of Revolution" by John Rees and "Reason in Revolt" by Ted Grant and Alan Woods. Both give easy, simplified, yet still detailed explanations of Hegel and Marx's logic that you can use to make your own arguments, and get a better understanding of theirs as well.

[Red Rebel]

If this link (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Essay_666_The_Final_Exam.htm)makes sense, then I'd suggest reading Hegel.

If reading Hegel was mandatory for being a Marxist there wouldn't be any Marxists.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Agustin:


I think Lenin said it was necessary to read a particular one of Hegel's works to truly understand a particular one of Marx's. But I can't remember which ones at the moment. I think it was Logic and Capital, respectively.

In fact, Lenin said this:


"It is impossible 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 (1961), p.180.]

Of course, this is all rather puzzling since Marx himself never claimed this of his own work.

In addition, since Lenin himself said he did not understand certain sections of the Logic (references can be supplied on request), that must mean he did not understand Das Kapital!

Nevertheless, a far more serious and damaging question is the following: How would it be possible to decide if anyone has ever actually understood all of Hegel's Logic? Even professional philosophers find that work daunting, and of those who claim to understand it, the presumption must be that that is an empty boast until they succeed in explaining it clearly to the rest of us. [No luck so far!]

Plainly, we can't enquire of Hegel what the correct interpretation of his work is. Even Lenin himself failed to provide us with a comprehensive (or comprehensible) account of all of Hegel's Logic. And, as we know with regard to the interpretation of that other (but far less) obscure book -- The Bible --, it is always open for someone to claim that their interpretation is the correct one, while all the rest aren't, with no empirically viable way of deciding between them.

Moreover, there are two different works commonly called Hegel's Logic (one of which Hegel was in the process of revising when he died). Lenin was unaware of the important changes Hegel had made to this book (since they only came to light ten years after Lenin died). So was Marx. Does this mean that one or both (Lenin and/or Marx) did not understand Das Kapital? It seems they must if Lenin were right.

This does not, of course, mean that workers cannot understand Das Kapital, but if Lenin were right it would be remarkable if anyone could!

The next question is: Why study a book that is 1) Based on egregious logical errors?, and 2) Which Marx indicated he had abandoned anyway?

On the first of these, see here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Outline_of_errors_Hegel_committed_01.htm

On the second, see here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1158574&postcount=73

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1158816&postcount=75

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1161443&postcount=114

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1163222&postcount=124

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Rebel, thanks for that link to a page from my site, but that page is out-of-date. The correct link is:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Essay_666_The_Final_Exam.htm

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Epsilon8998:


I suggest the books "The Algebra of Revolution" by John Rees and "Reason in Revolt" by Ted Grant and Alan Woods. Both give easy, simplified, yet still detailed explanations of Hegel and Marx's logic that you can use to make your own arguments, and get a better understanding of theirs as well.

Well, I began my work in earnest when Rees's book came out (1998), so the essays at my site are devoted to showing where he goes wrong. I have also added long sections on that egregious book Reason in Revolt, especially here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2004.htm

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2007.htm

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/appendix_to%20page%20seven.htm

[epsilon8998]

Epsilon8998:
Well, I began my work in earnest when Rees's book came out (1998), so the essays at my site are devoted to showing where he goes wrong. I have also added long sections on that egregious book Reason in Revolt, especially here:


That whole site is a mess of impossibly complex essays that are scattered around everywhere. Navigating it is so much of a hassle that it discourages anyone from even trying to read it. What is it that you're trying to prove with it all?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Epsilon:


That whole site is a mess of impossibly complex essays that are scattered around everywhere. Navigating it is so much of a hassle that it discourages anyone from even trying to read it.

1) That's why I posted direct links. Do you find following a direct link difficult/confusing?

2) Others say the exact opposite to you.


What is it that you're trying to prove with it all?

1) That dialectical materialism makes not one ounce of sense.

2) Hence. it's no surprise it has presided over 140+ years of the almost total failure of Dialectical Marxism.

[griffjam]

Sure, it's important to refine our hypotheses and learn from past mistakes—but if every worker has to read Hegel to be qualified to fight for her own liberation, call off the fucking revolution!

[epsilon8998]

Epsilon:

1) That dialectical materialism makes not one ounce of sense.

2) Hence. it's no surprise it has presided over 140+ years of the almost total failure of Dialectical Marxism.

Right. I browsed around and saw that you say you support Historical Materialism but not Dialectical Materialism. You do know that one followed the other right? What do you think is the difference between the two?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

epsilon:


You do know that one followed the other right?

According to Engels and Plekhanov, but not Marx.


What do you think is the difference between the two?

HM is a scientific theory that explains the development of class society and how the working class can change history in their own interests; DM makes no sense at all.

Check out this reply I have just posted:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1750746&postcount=61

[epsilon8998]

I looked around elsewhere and it seems like you were attacking DM's conception of formal logic based on their proposition that A = A. Is that what you were criticizing? Have you read Trotsky's ABC of Materialist Dialectics where he makes the counter claim, saying that A is not actually equal to A at all?

[ContrarianLemming]

really, guys, it not necessary to read Marx to understand Marx

[Zanthorus]

Anyway, Marx didn't get the dialectic from Feuerbach. He got materialism from Feuerbach, but he criticized Feuerbach's materialism as being mechanical and lifeless. He combined Hegel's dialectic with Feuerbach's materialism to come up with his own historical materialism.

If this is the case then why would he state in the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 that "Feuerbach both in his Thesen in the Anekdota and, in detail, in the Philosophie der Zukunft has in principle overthrown the old dialectic" and that he "is the only one who has a serious, critical attitude to the Hegelian dialectic and who has made genuine discoveries in this field" and is the "true conqueror of the old philosophy".

This also fails to explain why Marx considered his "dialectical" method "not only different from the Hegelian, but the direct opposite to it" and repudiated Hegel in the Critique of the Philosophy of right for his "logical pantheistic mysticism".

If Marx was merely taking Hegel's logic and applying it to history in a "materialist" way in contrast to Hegel's "idealist" application then so much the worse for "historical materialism" (A word which by the way I am confident you will not find in any work by Marx) and it's supposed corrolary "dialectical materialism" (A word which is neither Marx nor Engels and was first thought up by Georgi Plekhanov!). You cannot apply a "logic" to human reality and hope to come up with a "theory" of history which predicts the future.

On the other hand if Marx was merely asserting that in the satisfaction of their original natural needs men entered into social relations of production which were independent of their will and then reproduced themselves in various ways throughout society and ended up changing mens perception of the world and adding a "historical" aspect to human nature which constantly changed with the changing relations of production as productive forces came into conflict with the social relations of production then it's difficult to see what Hegelian "dialectics" has to offer us in unveiling or explaining any of this since it can be formulated quite nicely in terms of a verifiable empirical hypothesis.

[Palingenisis]

really, guys, it not necessary to read Marx to understand Marx

That has got to be one of the most stupid posts I have ever read on the net ever and actually surprising even coming from someone who doesnt see the relavancy to removing a large Imperialist army occupying the north east of our country and necessity of opposing an idealogy based around sectarian hatred and fanatical loyality to the UK state to creating a socialist society here. You really have to stop reading "The Irish Times" mo chara.

[ZeroNowhere]

really, guys, it not necessary to read Marx to understand Marx
Indeed, as is displayed in most literature on Marx. Marx, incidentally, believed in unicorns saving the world from capitalism, although this may have been rather idealistic on his part.


That has got to be one of the most stupid posts I have ever read on the net ever and actually surprising even coming from someone who doesnt see the relavancy to removing a large Imperialist army occupying the north east of our country and necessity of opposing an idealogy based around sectarian hatred and fanatical loyality to the UK state to creating a socialist society here. You really have to stop reading "The Irish Times" mo chara.I love how this post just goes off on a run-on sentence that is focused on attacking the person's views on another subject.


A word which by the way I am confident you will not find in any work by MarxI believe that it was based on his use of 'materialist conception of history', to be fair. To be accurate, it was a pretty dismal choice of name, and probably had some influence on how the term would go on to be interpreted, and then read into Marx, as a recipe or schema for neatly trimming the epochs of history. That is, it sounds like a theory of history, and probably the reason why Marx did not use it is because this would be wholly inappropriate.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Epsilon:


I looked around elsewhere and it seems like you were attacking DM's conception of formal logic based on their proposition that A = A. Is that what you were criticizing? Have you read Trotsky's ABC of Materialist Dialectics where he makes the counter claim, saying that A is not actually equal to A at all?

Well, I'm criticising a whole lot more than that.

And, yes, I have read Trotsky's book; in fact, I spend a whole essay pulling it apart:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2006.htm

[ContrarianLemming]

That has got to be one of the most stupid posts I have ever read on the net ever and actually surprising even coming from someone who doesnt see the relavancy to removing a large Imperialist army occupying the north east of our country and necessity of opposing an idealogy based around sectarian hatred and fanatical loyality to the UK state to creating a socialist society here. You really have to stop reading "The Irish Times" mo chara.

You no idea what I meant and no idea what I believe or why i say the thing I say, so stop your petty insults.

[chegitz guevara]

If this is the case then why would he state in the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 that "Feuerbach both in his Thesen in the Anekdota and, in detail, in the Philosophie der Zukunft has in principle overthrown the old dialectic" and that he "is the only one who has a serious, critical attitude to the Hegelian dialectic and who has made genuine discoveries in this field" and is the "true conqueror of the old philosophy".

And you know damn well Marx broke with Feurerbach after he wrote the economic and philosophic manuscripts.


This also fails to explain why Marx considered his "dialectical" method "not only different from the Hegelian, but the direct opposite to it" and repudiated Hegel in the Critique of the Philosophy of right for his "logical pantheistic mysticism".

And Marx himself frequently said that what he did was to stand Hegel on his head, and he acknowledged his debt to Hegel. If you read Capital, and you read Hegel, you will see the similarities. Specifically, the dialectical method in both is how they unfold their arguments, starting with a single idea and unfolding a whole system.

[S.Artesian]

Of course, this is all rather puzzling since Marx himself never claimed this of his own work.

What Marx did say in his correspondence is that as he was preparing and composing his analysis of capital, he reread Hegel's Science of Logic and found it quite helpful to formulating his investigation.



Nevertheless, a far more serious and damaging question is the following: How would it be possible to decide if anyone has ever actually understood all of Hegel's Logic? Even professional philosophers find that work daunting, and of those who claim to understand it, the presumption must be that that is an empty boast until they succeed in explaining it clearly to the rest of us. [No luck so far!]

Now that's a legit criticism. Just as the criticism of those who claim they've never read Hegel and understand Marx "just fine" ['how do they know?'] is a legit criticism.


Moreover, there are two different works commonly called Hegel's Logic (one of which Hegel was in the process of revising when he died). Lenin was unaware of the important changes Hegel had made to this book (since they only came to light ten years after Lenin died). So was Marx. Does this mean that one or both (Lenin and/or Marx) did not understand [I]Das Kapital? It seems they must if Lenin were right.

Another legit point.

Marx did not intend for anyone to have to study and comprehend Hegel prior to reading, comprehending, and use his, Marx's, own work. That's all that needs to be said about that.

Doesn't mean Marx didn't draw from Hegel, didn't appreciate Hegel, didn't extract a rational kernel from Hegel.

Does mean, no you don't have to understand Hegel to understand Marx. IMO, however, you really have to understand Marx to understand the connection between Marx's work and Hegel.

[Spencer]

From 'Marx Without Myth':


On January 5 he reported receiving a letter from Dietzgen concerning the later's recent studies in 'dialectic cognition' and the works of Hegel. To this Marx commented sarcastically that 'the poor fellow has gone forward "backwards" and "arrived" at the Phenomenology. I consider the case incurable.'

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

S Artesian:


What Marx did say in his correspondence is that as he was preparing and composing his analysis of capital, he reread Hegel's Science of Logic [I think that was the work he identified] and found it quite helpful to formulating his investigation

He also tells us that he didn't even have a copy of this badly misnamed book and had to borrow one from Freiligrath! This hardly suggests he was an avid fan of that mystical bumbler.

And, after re-reading Hegel's 'logic', what did Marx do? He added a summary of 'his method', the 'dialectic method', to the Postface to the second edition, in which there was no trace of Hegel whatsoever. He clearly found that execrable book no use at all.

And, of the few places where Hegelian jargon surfaces in Das Kapital, he tells us he was merely playing around ('coquetting') with it.

Again, not a ringing endorsement of that logical incompetent's work.


Now that's a legit criticism. Just as the criticism of those who claim they've never read Hegel and understand Marx "just fine" ['how do they know?'] is a legit criticism.

Given that Marx's work does not contain any mystical ideas and/or terminology, the only barrier to understanding it is time and effort. That is not the case with Hegel. It is not possible to understand mysticism.


Marx did not intend for anyone to have to study and comprehend Hegel prior to reading, comprehending, and use his, Marx's, own work. That's all that needs to be said about that.

I agree.


Doesn't mean Marx didn't draw from Hegel, didn't appreciate Hegel, didn't extract a rational kernel from Hegel.

But that 'rational kernel' contained no 'contradictions', no 'unity of opposites', no 'quantity passing over into quality', no 'negation of the negation', no 'totality' -- in fact it contained not one atom of Hegel.

So, what Marx learnt after re-reading Hegel was to ignore everything he had to say.


Does mean, no you don't have to understand Hegel to understand Marx. IMO, however, you really have to understand Marx to understand the connection between Marx's work and Hegel.

A 'connection' which amounted to a total rejection.

[Zanthorus]

And you know damn well Marx broke with Feurerbach after he wrote the economic and philosophic manuscripts.

Yes, he broke with Feuerbach in the theses because although Feuerbach had "conquered the old philosophy" the new philosophy which he had built up in it's place lapsed straight back in to bourgeois materialism and assumed again that human beings were merly passive instruments reacting to their environment rather than active subjects whose "nature" was not really "natural" but socially and historically derived. It wasn't necessarily to do with Feuerbach's critique of the Hegelian dialectic.


And Marx himself frequently said that what he did was to stand Hegel on his head, and he acknowledged his debt to Hegel. If you read Capital, and you read Hegel, you will see the similarities. Specifically, the dialectical method in both is how they unfold their arguments, starting with a single idea and unfolding a whole system.

Admittedly there is a similarity in style between Capital the Logic. That doesn't necessarily mean that you need to read the latter in order to understand the former properly.

[ReVoLuTiOnArY-BrOtHeR]

Of course Hegel is necessary. In addition Kant and Feurbach are also essential.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Why is the work of a logical incompetent, christian mystic essential reading for Marxists?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Zanthorus:


Admittedly there is a similarity in style between Capital [and] the Logic

Where, precisely?