Hello, a Young Hegelian here!

[TheEmancipator]

A person very interest in the philosophy of the revolutionary left, and a supporter.

Many people forget that Marx was not the only Young Hegelian (What our oppressors call "Left" and what we have since embraced as a label) around. I'm here as much a critic of Marx as I am a supporter of him. However, he was undoubtedly the most successful of the lot.

On a practical level, I am fundamentally against the USSR, Cuba, DPR China and any other forms of Marxism-Leninism, which is a dangerous path to our ultimate goal. I believe the only times Communism resembled what it should be is the Commune de Paris and Anarchist Catalonia in the 1930s.

I believe democracy and Revolution can be compatible, but that (as is the case today) people are too misguided to vote for the proper people, instead voting for populists and liars. We are not living in a democracy anyway.

I do not believe in dictatorship of the proletariat. Or any dictatorship. Only that the "proletariat" becomes educated enough to acquire the factors of production and knowledge which have been denied to them.

The proletariat of the West is virtually dead or misguided by pseudo-Trotskyist parties or worse, fascists. However, as an internationalist I continue to believe that the proletariats in China, India and parts of Africa should rise up, most of the time against oppressors posing as pseudo-Communists. In the West, parts of the middle class such as employees and small local business' are now the oppressed class. I guess because I come from a well-off background I actually feel sympathy for these people, despite their flaws. I presume some of you don't though.

Anyway, I'll stop my ramblings, and just say that although I'm a bit of a Champagne Socialist, I have always had huge respect for the Left, who are the only ones to have stood up to the fascists before the "liberals" did. Ever since the days of Spartacus, we've defended the weak from the so-called strong.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Welcome to RevLeft! :D

[ВАЛТЕР]

Hi and welcome! I don't think you understand what is meant by "dictatorship of the proletariat". It is the rule of the proletariat as a class, not a dictatorship in the modern sense of one guy telling everyone what to do.

[JPSartre12]

Welcome, comrade. If you have any questions at any time, don't hesitate to ask.

[Red Enemy]

Welcome! Have you looked into Marxist-Humanism?

[Art Vandelay]

Welcome to the forum, its interesting to see you label yourself as a young hegelian. Have you ever read any Max Stirner? He's one of my favorite of the lot.

[TheEmancipator]

Thank you for all your kind messages. I'd like to reward you with the reputation system. Could someone explain how this works?



Hi and welcome! I don't think you understand what is meant by "dictatorship of the proletariat". It is the rule of the proletariat as a class, not a dictatorship in the modern sense of one guy telling everyone what to do.

Thank you for the clarification, its just that some people do actually think of such dictatorship as acceptable.



Welcome! Have you looked into Marxist-Humanism?

Yes, I didn't realise that is what they called Marx's early works but that's exactly what I'm talking about. The Late Marx I do not believe is the real Marx. I think he was getting obsessed with economic theory, and is therefore misunderstood as a dehumaniser.



Welcome to the forum, its interesting to see you label yourself as a young hegelian. Have you ever read any Max Stirner? He's one of my favorite of the lot.

Yes, I have heard of him a bit. He's very amusing and interesting at the same time. I think he divorces himself from Hegel's idea that History is predictable through dialectic in a sense and goes towards a more existentialist thought. I also like the fact he combines the importance of the individual with the collective. I'd like to learn a bit more about him though.

For me, Marx should have addressed this more, because I am of the firm belief that Marx's view on individual as well as collective liberty would've silenced his critics.

[Art Vandelay]

Yes, I have heard of him a bit. He's very amusing and interesting at the same time. I think he divorces himself from Hegel's idea that History is predictable through dialectic in a sense and goes towards a more existentialist thought. I also like the fact he combines the importance of the individual with the collective. I'd like to learn a bit more about him though.

For me, Marx should have addressed this more, because I am of the firm belief that Marx's view on individual as well as collective liberty would've silenced his critics.

Yeah I do have my criticisms of him as well, however I do draw heavy influence from him when it comes to my personal life.

[Thirsty Crow]

Many people forget that Marx was not the only Young Hegelian (What our oppressors call "Left" and what we have since embraced as a label) around. I'm here as much a critic of Marx as I am a supporter of him. However, he was undoubtedly the most successful of the lot.
Fortunately for us, that period had ended by at least the time the German Ideology was written, and this phantom of hegelianism, old or young, left or right, extirpated.



The proletariat of the West is virtually dead or misguided by pseudo-Trotskyist parties or worse, fascists.
Virtually dead? Not even a blinded pessimist would draw such conclusions, and especially in relation to these "pseudo-Trotskyist" parties and their relevance, though it would be best if you elaborated on this.


However, as an internationalist I continue to believe that the proletariats in China, India and parts of Africa should rise up, most of the time against oppressors posing as pseudo-Communists. In the West, parts of the middle class such as employees and small local business' are now the oppressed class. I guess because I come from a well-off background I actually feel sympathy for these people, despite their flaws. I presume some of you don't though.
Indeed internationalism is a core component of revolutionary communism, though that does not leave much room for dismissing the potential and role of a specific national or regional working class ("the West", as you seem to do).

And of course, small time capitalists have it rough now. That, however, does not necessarily mean that the working class might find anything positive in support for this layer of the ruling class. And I most certainly disagree with the way you frame it - these groups are part of the ruling class, which isn't a homogenous class devoid od intra-class conflicts.

And yes, you're probably right that one's class background can often account for certain sensibilites and ways of thinking.


Ever since the days of Spartacus, we've defended the weak from the so-called strong.I think you're ideas are also a bit related to Hollywood historical spectacles :lol:
Of course that the man you mention was no such thing as a part of the (spiritual?) "left" nobly defending the weak through centuries and centuries. He was a part of "the weak", much like a lot of communists here are workers and part of the class.

Oh yes, welcome and learn as much as possible, and hopefully this Hegelianism will begin to recede :) (and sorry if I came across as hostile)

P.S. I'd advise you to take a look at Lucio Colletti's Marxism and Hegel.

[l'Enfermé]

Welcome to RL. You can "reward" posts by clicking the "Thanks!" button at the bottom-right of posts, it's next to the "Quote" and "Reply" buttons.

English MIA has a wonderful archive for Hegel, have you ever checked it out?

http://marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/index.htm

[TheEmancipator]

Fortunately for us, that period had ended by at least the time the German Ideology was written, and this phantom of hegelianism, old or young, left or right, extirpated.

Elaborate. Without Hegel, Marx and this website would not exist. Have you heard of the master-slave dialectic?

The Old Hegelians were a bunch of misguided fools who took Hegel's idea of "State" as "Centralised State". They went on to form fascists and nazis. They took Hegel's idea that Germany is a superstate seriously too even though he was just using it as an example.


Virtually dead? Not even a blinded pessimist would draw such conclusions, and especially in relation to these "pseudo-Trotskyist" parties and their relevance, though it would be best if you elaborated on this.


Marx could not predict globalisation on such a scale. Nor could he predict WW2, (although I firmly believe both World Wars were the zenith of capitalism, since it was a struggle to see who could control the factors of production) and its consequences. Therefore his late works such as Das Kapital are, while pertinent for his historical block, outdated.

People recognised this long before our day. Lenin and Trotsky "updated" Marxism to their historical context. But since then we've been rather stuck with their ideologies. This tendency towards Trotskyism in the West is ridiculous. Its time we updated Marxist thought/methodology to our historical block. To be fair parties like Syriza are trying to reach this.






Indeed internationalism is a core component of revolutionary communism, though that does not leave much room for dismissing the potential and role of a specific national or regional working class ("the West", as you seem to do).


Never dismissed an uprising in the West, I just said the proletariat in Europe especially has been eradicated. New classes have emerged. Even the bourgeoisie has divided itself.

Employees, Small-time businesses, a few workers, unemployed, academics. These are all classes that have been ridiculed by the oppressing class, who hand them desk jobs and narcotics when they have a world to win. I have seen these environments first hand, and despite what you may think, these people also suffer because they have no ambition, no sense of community, no hope part from hedonist pleasures.


And of course, small time capitalists have it rough now. That, however, does not necessarily mean that the working class might find anything positive in support for this layer of the ruling class. And I most certainly disagree with the way you frame it - these groups are part of the ruling class, which isn't a homogenous class devoid od intra-class conflicts.


I fear, like the late Marx, you are obsessed with the proletariat and "working class" and can't see the bigger picture here. There is far more to Communism than the working classes. Even Lenin saw this, which is why he changed it to "Workers and oppressed people of the world".

Do you not see that eventually the working class will be replaced. The revolutionary anti-thesis to the capitalist thesis that Marx tried to create didn't work in the West. That is why we who support the Left in Western countries are ridiculed by our own, who believe the struggle to be over. Sometimes I fear it might be.

But after the synthesis of all this, the calm before the storm, the victorious elite will always find new ways of oppressing people, until we finally get to the Absolute, where we will finally figure out what it is to be truly free. You think I am bullshitting but I am not. I truly believe in this, just like you believe in the Communist Paradise.



And yes, you're probably right that one's class background can often account for certain sensibilites and ways of thinking.


Sad fact, but the point of adhering to Marxist thought and the master-slave dialectic is to realise the oppressors are not always Masters by choice, and see themselves inside the Slave. They are humans too, remember.


I think you're ideas are also a bit related to Hollywood historical spectacles :lol:
Of course that the man you mention was no such thing as a part of the (spiritual?) "left" nobly defending the weak through centuries and centuries. He was a part of "the weak", much like a lot of communists here are workers and part of the class.

Yes, I do believe in a spiritual left believe it or not. More precisely, a series of people who, due to historical circumstances, find themselves in a position to defend the oppressed from the oppressor. They come from all different classes, backgrounds, etc. But they are ultimately progressives, people who want to move History forward. Marx was one of them. And "Leftism" was not born with Karl Marx. Only the materialist left.

Why they do such things? Who knows. Maybe to have Hollywood films made for them, eh? :) Or maybe they've become concious of their role in History, "class conscious" I think the Marxists call it, which can also happen to individuals.



Oh yes, welcome and learn as much as possible, and hopefully this Hegelianism will begin to recede :) (and sorry if I came across as hostile)


Understandable. People associate Hegel with religion and right-wing thought. Yet the Young Hegel was the ultimate progressive. He believed progress was necessary and always good. It meant the eventual acquisition of Liberty by Human Kind.

Conservatives slow down the historical process, while revolutionaries speed it up.



P.S. I'd advise you to take a look at Lucio Colletti's Marxism and Hegel.

Thanks!

[TheRedAnarchist23]

I don't think you understand what is meant by "dictatorship of the proletariat". It is the rule of the proletariat as a class, not a dictatorship in the modern sense of one guy telling everyone what to do.

I beleive he is refering to the dictatorship of the proletariat that was put in practice rather than the imaginary dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Thirsty Crow]

Elaborate. Without Hegel, Marx and this website would not exist. Have you heard of the master-slave dialectic?Well, of course, we all have to start somewhere, and hopefully this starting position will enable us to go forward. But you cannot go forward without making actual steps and instead remaining stuck.

It's good that Marx didn't. And that is what I'm getting at, that as early as German Ideology, the act of criticism, both of Hegel and his legacy as embodied by the Young Hegelians, was for all intents and purposes done, and speculative philosophy (or philosophy as it can only be - a kind of an idealism, a notion which you should be very familiar with judging from your username) confined to the trash bin.




Marx could not predict globalisation on such a scale. Nor could he predict WW2, (although I firmly believe both World Wars were the zenith of capitalism, since it was a struggle to see who could control the factors of production) and its consequences. Therefore his late works such as Das Kapital are, while pertinent for his historical block, outdated. The purpose and aim of Capital was not to act as a record of a crystal ball gazing session. In other words, what you claim here is not relevant at all.

Though, of course, I agree with the need not for an "update" of the critique of political economy, but for its concretization with respect to the current conditions and their significance. And I think that Marx provided the best theoretical model to do so.


People recognised this long before our day. Lenin and Trotsky "updated" Marxism to their historical context. But since then we've been rather stuck with their ideologies. This tendency towards Trotskyism in the West is ridiculous. Its time we updated Marxist thought/methodology to our historical block. To be fair parties like Syriza are trying to reach this.How did they "update" Marxism, actually? Did they reject or revise Capital or certain sections of it (I'm merely following you bringing up this work to attention)? Did they deny that the working class is the (potentially) revolutionary class in bourgeois society, be it advanced as e.g. that of Great Britain or "underdeveloped" and semi-feudal such as Tsarist Russia?

And to be fair, poarties like SYRIZA are trying to reach governmental seats for the purpose of a fairer capitalism and a fairer asuterity.



Never dismissed an uprising in the West, I just said the proletariat in Europe especially has been eradicated. New classes have emerged. Even the bourgeoisie has divided itself. The proletariat, as a term, does not signify only industrial, blue collar, manual labour.
The modern class of wage workers includes those people that are forced by circumstance to work for a capitalist in order to be able to get their means of subsistence, and thus producing an expanded capital.

And even if you used the term correctly, you'd be wrong. Do you believe the myth that there is no industrial production in Europe anymore? Sure, the ongoing process of capitalist restructuring has eliminated millions of such jobs, but that is besides the point.

And the point is that you should actually bother to learn what specific terms mean before you get into such grand proclamations.


Employees, Small-time businesses, a few workers, unemployed, academics. These are all classes that have been ridiculed by the oppressing class, who hand them desk jobs and narcotics when they have a world to win. I have seen these environments first hand, and despite what you may think, these people also suffer because they have no ambition, no sense of community, no hope part from hedonist pleasures.Small capitalists are being handed desk jobs? By whom exactly?

As I stated, there is no single reason whatsoever why leftists should orient themselves to the petite bourgeoisie. And what I think of these groups in a personal sense is completely irrelevant. If it is of any interest, I tend to despise them due to personal experience. But that doesn't matter actually. And again, I would advise against this debating practice of setting up straw man arguments. I never said that small capitalists don't suffer - indeed, their position actually means that there is more or less present threat of proletarianization. And I do not think that sections of this class will be completely alienated from the proletariat.



I fear, like the late Marx, you are obsessed with the proletariat and "working class" and can't see the bigger picture here. There is far more to Communism than the working classes. Even Lenin saw this, which is why he changed it to "Workers and oppressed people of the world".I don't think you are aware of the concrete reasons behind some of the terminology dating back to the October Revolution. Namely, it was nothing short of practical since the peasantry, comprising a large demographic majority, acted as an allied class in the overthrow of Tsarism. I think you're deluding yourself if you think this refers to small capitalists. Though, of course you're free to produce some compelling evidence.


Do you not see that eventually the working class will be replaced. The revolutionary anti-thesis to the capitalist thesis that Marx tried to create didn't work in the West. That is why we who support the Left in Western countries are ridiculed by our own, who believe the struggle to be over. Sometimes I fear it might be.
Replaced with what? How could capitalism exist without a working class?

And it is foolish, yet symptomatic of an intellectual, to cinsider that Marx tried to "create" an "anti-thesis to the capitalist thesis" (if I understand this gibberish correctly). Marx didn't create the workers' movement.

And yes, the history of the said movement is history of defeat. Though, I'd think that anyone who claims that the struggle is over is either living under a rock or deluded.


But after the synthesis of all this, the calm before the storm, the victorious elite will always find new ways of oppressing people, until we finally get to the Absolute, where we will finally figure out what it is to be truly free. You think I am bullshitting but I am not. I truly believe in this, just like you believe in the Communist Paradise.

It's very tempting to project your own thought patterns onto others, isn't it?
No doubt you believe this. But the problem is that this is a matter of belief for you. No wonder with all this dusty and old bats of the Absolute flying around.
And no doubt, I don't think there is a significantly large degree of probability that global communism will arise any time soon. Yet, I know it is possible.


Sad fact, but the point of adhering to Marxist thought and the master-slave dialectic is to realise the oppressors are not always Masters by choice, and see themselves inside the Slave. They are humans too, remember.Yeah, sure, what a nice little banality.




Yes, I do believe in a spiritual left believe it or not.Oh it's not hard for me to accept that you do. Didn't I kind of guessed it?



Why they do such things? Who knows. Maybe to have Hollywood films made for them, eh? :) Or maybe they've become concious of their role in History, "class conscious" I think the Marxists call it, which can also happen to individuals.
I think that, in the case of Spartacus, it is fairly reasonable to assume that they get pissed off with their conditions of life. It is only centuries later that they're sanctified and turned into harmless icons by bourgeois culture :lol:

Oh yes, and check out the Philosophy subforum, I think you'd find some interesting threads there. Cheers :)

[Yazman]

Welcome to Revleft! Please send me a private message if you have any issues, problems or concerns.

Also, feel free to ask questions in this thread.