Hegelian Marxism?

[Zoroaster]

What is Hegelian Marxism?

[Rafiq]

I believe it refers to a camp of Marxist intellectuals who see Hegel beyond Marx's criticism of him (therefore able to form a better understanding of Marx). They see Marx as a category of Hegel.

Marxism, however, is already Hegelian in nature. This is inarguable.

[Thirsty Crow]

I believe it refers to a camp of Marxist intellectuals who see Hegel beyond Marx's criticism of him (therefore able to form a better understanding of Marx). They see Marx as a category of Hegel.

Marxism, however, is already Hegelian in nature. This is inarguable.What does it even mean to "see Hegel beyond Marx's criticism of him" and especially to "see Marx as a category of Hegel"? Does the latter amount to seeing the materialist conception of history as a category of absolute idealism?

And I would very much appreciate an elaboration of just how Marxism is already Hegelian "in nature".

[Hit The North]

Marxists who perhaps over-estimate the continuation between Hegel's philosophy and Marx's historical materialism? Lucaks, Korsch and the Franfurt School are usually identified as such. As you can see from the list of suspects, it appeals to professional academics and philosophers and is linked to the idea of 'Western Marxism' and has mainly been 'practised' in academia.

Theoretically and historically, it could be seen to provide a much-needed corrective to mechanical forms of Marxism which over-estimate the motive force of objective factors and sidelines Marxism into fatalism and economic determinism. This is because these thinkers tend to prioritise the analysis of alienation in Marx's writing and the requirement for human liberation to be based on the overcoming of this alienation. They have tended to emphasise the dialectical aspect of Marxist thinking and yet many of them pursued one-sided analyses.

[Rafiq]

What does it even mean to "see Hegel beyond Marx's criticism of him"

It means to take Hegel as seriously as Marx did in his youth and re-trace Marx's steps. Not simply blindly accepting Marx's criticism as Hegel as the only thing Hegel has to offer us. We have to understand why. There are things about Hegel that Marx took as a given to his grave, that he did not thouroughly discuss because it was the standard for his given time period. Fuck, how do I re-phrase that?

Marx developed his theories, his criticism of Hegel based on an intellectual-historical circumstance that is completely different from our own. A different context of debate, if you will. It is like the modern Left: All they remember about Kautsky was that he was a renegade, and blah blah blah. They're ignorant and they have forgotten the very foundations of Bolshevism and the Bolshevik method, which is rooted in Kautsky.

Simalarly the foundations of Marxism, the basic logical presumptions are Hegelian. This is inarguable. Any association of Hegelianism with "teleology" is a blantantly ignorant misunderstanding of Hegel's understanding of history. Rather than claiming all history is leading up to a final moment, the point of Hegel's understanding of history is that this final movement is perceived only in the moment we are in.

Which is why other than the Young Hegelians you had the Right Hegelians, who interpreted this as saying history has already perfected itself in their present moment and that all there is to do is conserve the existing order. Marx was the true disciple of Hegel, even if it meant breaking with him.


and especially to "see Marx as a category of Hegel"? Does the latter amount to seeing the materialist conception of history as a category of absolute idealism?


Frankly this is detestable. It is disgustingly ignorant to claim (or maybe I just find it sickening that the forum's philstines, like 870 thank your post) that Hegel as a philosopher was simply distinguished by his Idealism. Marx turned Hegel's method in its head, but it was still Hegel's method. Idealism had existed long before Hegel, so the question resides: What distinguished Hegel from the others? That which distinguishes it, is found in the core of Marxism. It's not simply Hegel's dialectic method. It's things like totality, things like different ways to define history. For Marx history isn't rooted in simply what happened yesterday, it is completely transformative events that set new constrains for development. The difference was that Hegel rooted this in the development of ideas, and Marx rooted in social revolutions based on class warfare, of which ideas were a product of. It's still Hegelian. The skeleton of such a formulation didn't exist before Hegel.

It's things like this which are taken for granted by Marxists today, more disappointingly often stomped upon, unintentionally forgotten or overlooked.


And I would very much appreciate an elaboration of just how Marxism is already Hegelian "in nature".

I find such a reaction to the post odd. Don't act like you don't know what I mean by "in nature". Why do people tend to focus on the most worthless, trivial aspects of my posts? I could have said "Hegelian in character" or "Hegelian in stature" or "Hegelian at core". It doesn't make a difference.

Frankly I find it ridiculous to deny Marxism as Hegelian. Hegelian as in that which distinguishes Hegel from ideologues and philosophers before him (which Marx concurs with). Marx criticized Hegel from Hegel. He did not write about how Hegel's new ideas were wrong and that the old ones were right. He presumed those new ideas, took from them what needed to be taken. He refined and sophisticated them and in the process transformed them. It is still Hegelian. It is identifiably Hegelian. Hegel posited a new understanding of history, Marx didn't say that the old one was correct. He simply transformed this new understanding. It's so sad how Hegel is dismissed when there are treasures infinitely more applicable today then ever to be found in his works. Marx as a category of Hegel means Marx as a branch, an offshoot of Hegel. I find it unsurprising that those philistine Trotskyists would want to butcher Hegel from Marxism, as to complete the ritual sacrifice of all that made Marxism great, to the altars of shitty activism (Yeah, sorry, that's what it is. I don't care if they say otherwise. It's activism.) and "political" role-play.

[Rafiq]

Any link formed between determinism, teleology, fatalism and Hegelianism is the most infantile of misunderstandings and reflects oceans of ignorance. It is the most disappointing reading one could have of Hegel imaginable. It's like your missing so much, you're over-looking so much, it's philistinism at it's best. Frankly Hegel is not distinguished by idealism. Maybe within the framework of Marxism and Marxism only is he, but that already presumes that we accept Hegel's underlying logic and oppose his idealism. Otherwise, why do we pay so much attention to Hegel's Idealism in the first place? Why not whine about Descartes, or Spinoza, or Kant for fuck's sake?

[Thirsty Crow]

It means to take Hegel as seriously as Marx did in his youth and re-trace Marx's steps. Not simply blindly accepting Marx's criticism as Hegel as the only thing Hegel has to offer us....

Marx developed his theories, his criticism of Hegel based on an intellectual-historical circumstance that is completely different from our own. A different context of debate, if you will. It is like the modern Left: All they remember about Kautsky was that he was a renegade, and blah blah blah. They're ignorant and they have forgotten the very foundations of Bolshevism and the Bolshevik method, which is rooted in Kautsky.

Okay, that's a rather banal statement, that it's more advisable to read the texts themselves. However, from reading both sets of texts and other texts dealing with this problem, I can't conclude anything apart from the fact that Marx's criticism indeed hits the foundations of that particular kind of idealism (which would mean that in order to do some class analysis one is better off getting rid of any traces of what's important for Hegel's idealism in particular, and idealism in general too)



Simalarly the foundations of Marxism, the basic logical presumptions are Hegelian. This is inarguable.
It is inarguable if you don't argue for it, but merely assert it.
Which "basic logical presumptions" upon which Marxism obviously depends are Hegelian? What do you mean exactly by "Hegelian" here?


Any association of Hegelianism with "teleology" is a blantantly ignorant misunderstanding of Hegel's understanding of history. Rather than claiming all history is leading up to a final moment, the point of Hegel's understanding of history is that this final movement is perceived only in the moment we are in. Frankly, I don't think you ever bothered with Hegel in the first place. I also think you're not that well aware of what you're even trying to say here (as you change "moment" for "movement" in the last sentence; and yes this is kinda important, and this isn't nitpicking cause I can't actually tell was it "movement" or "moment" you meant in the first place).

Apart from that and following from the very principle of Hegel's thought - the postulate that the final, material existence is ideal - it's only obvious that human history is teleological (like every damn thing that apparently exists) in that it represents a medium through which the Absolute develops itself and comes to self-understanding. When one discards this starting point they're better suited not to end up with a teleology of sorts which projects a plan and a purpose where none can be discerned.


Which is why other than the Young Hegelians you had the Right Hegelians, who interpreted this as saying history has already perfected itself in their present moment and that all there is to do is conserve the existing order. Marx was the true disciple of Hegel, even if it meant breaking with him. That's some peculiar use of the idea of "a true disciple". Somehow radically breaking with the fundamentals of one's doctrine is tantamount to being a true disciple.

Sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever.


Frankly this is detestable. It is disgustingly ignorant to claim (or maybe I just find it sickening that the forum's philstines, like 870 thank your post) that Hegel as a philosopher was simply distinguished by his Idealism.Oh and I wondered when will all that righteous intellectual rage kick in.

You're right that Hegel as philosopher wasn't simply distinguished by his idealism; in fact, he is distinguished by his absolute idealism which, on its own, represents a significant reworking and criticism of the older idealist traditions in that it retains the basic principles, but rejects the form of argument (here's where the dialectics of matter kick in and no, unfortunately no single trace of any recognizable "matter" is left standing).


Marx turned Hegel's method in its head, but it was still Hegel's method. Idealism had existed long before Hegel, so the question resides: What distinguished Hegel from the others? That which distinguishes it, is found in the core of Marxism.Yeah, that's a well known fairy tale dialectical materialists like to tell themselves to lull them into sleep, but I don't think it holds. This is essentially the view of the Young Hegelians who made it a fashion to claim that there is a huge contradiction between Hegel's method and his system. Which doesn't make any sense. But of course, you can demonstrate here this contradiction in a detailed account of both sides, the method and the system.

Anyway, if it were shown to be the case (that for instance, Das Kapital is based on a fundamental Hegelian framework), then we'd need a new materialist framework with which we could work on understanding capitalism.


It's not simply Hegel's dialectic method. It's things like totality, things like different ways to define history.What's the totality for Hegel then? What is this dialectic method?

In short, the totality or the concrete is a two-way alleged process whereby the finite, the material stuff which has no "truth" or being of its own is subsumed back into the Absolute (cause finite things not only change but also disappear), but at the same time this only true reality (unconditioned as it were, uncreated, eternal thus "real"; it's interesting to note that Hegel relies on two lexical items, Wirklichkeit - used for "real" in this sense of the ultimate and only substantial reality of the Absolute Idea - and Realitaet when talking about the illusory reality of everyday material stuff) undergoes emanation so to speak which produces these same appearances (what you later on would liken to human history as rooted in development of ideas - but this is insufficient).

That's the contradictory Totality, that finite material stuff has "non-being" as its being. Of course, when Marxists sensibly talk about the totality of social relations nothing of the sort is implied so it makes no sense to say that this is a Hegelian method. For instance, isolating the relations of distribution is simply insufficient if one wants to understand how capitalist society actually functions; the result is fixing the relations of production as natural, eternal, and completely immutable. And then you've got a serious problem.


The difference was that Hegel rooted this in the development of ideas, and Marx rooted in social revolutions based on class warfare, of which ideas were a product of. It's still Hegelian. The skeleton of such a formulation didn't exist before Hegel.
Hegel didn't root anything in the development of particular ideas put forward by particular people at particular time.

Instead what he was interested about was the series of the embodiment of the Absolute (as much as that makes no sense for a person trying to think critically, that is, non-metaphysically); the self-development not of thinking heads confronted with specific tasks, but of the Absolute.

Even if you did manage not to completely simplify (and butcher, really) Hegel, still it is far from clear how these two mutually opposed viewpoints (one says "A is the basis of X", the other "No, B is the basis of X") enable one to conclude that there's a common underlying method. If a method is such that it makes possible so divergent points, then it's no specific, useful method at all.

In other words, you're claiming something about a "skeleton" of the Marxist formulation. Well, demonstrate that skeleton, define it, because you've done no such thing.
It's things like this which are taken for granted by Marxists today, more disappointingly often stomped upon, unintentionally forgotten or overlooked.



I
find such a reaction to the post odd. Don't act like you don't know what I mean by "in nature". Why do people tend to focus on the most worthless, trivial aspects of my posts? I could have said "Hegelian in character" or "Hegelian in stature" or "Hegelian at core". It doesn't make a difference.Which reaction would that be? The scare quote? It's irrelevant really since if you wrote "in character" or "at core" I would've asked the exact same thing.


Frankly I find it ridiculous to deny Marxism as Hegelian.Too bad you're unable to defend this viewpoint.


Hegelian as in that which distinguishes Hegel from ideologues and philosophers before him (which Marx concurs with).
So let's hear about it - what is it that distinguishes Hegel from earlier traditional philosophy?


Marx criticized Hegel from Hegel. He did not write about how Hegel's new ideas were wrong and that the old ones were right. He presumed those new ideas, took from them what needed to be taken. He refined and sophisticated them and in the process transformed them. It is still Hegelian.
It's fascinating how people can harp on and on about that ideas without ever specifying what those ideas actually were and how were they used. By this point I don't expect a coherent and correct answer to the question "which ideas are you referring to"


It is identifiably Hegelian. For instance. Hegel posited a new understanding of history, Marx didn't say that the old one was correct. He simply transformed this new understanding.
So when you transform something into another thing radically different from it, it somehow makes sense to claim that this new thing is in some way identifiable with the old?

Anyway. I do claim Hegel was a rigorously coherent thinker, and that this must be taken into account. One consequence is ditching any naive ideas about supposed contradictions between the method - allegedly inherited by Marxism (and indeed there's much Hegelian residue, so much in fact that it makes a mockery of the supposed materialist inversion, in much of writings produced by people who thought of themselves as Marxists and materialists) - and the system. It's all one harmonious idealist whole. And yes pun intended. That's how Hegel ends up with his "uncritical positivism" (Marx's phrase), leaving everything that exists as it is, in the first place. When one thinks about it without the decades and decades of naive misunderstanding (e.g. Lenin claiming he's trying to read Hegel materialistically - which only means reading him completely wrong), it all makes sense and can be reduced to something quite simple: if material reality - appearances - are medium through which the Absolute presents itself, if this "appearing" is the product of the Absolute (everything, including human history, mind you), then of course that the end point with human history is to consistently argue that whatever the state of affairs it is the product of the self-development of the Absolute. It is as it is, sorry folks.


It's so sad how Hegel is dismissed when there are treasures infinitely more applicable today then ever to be found in his works.Which ones?

Try to understand that without specification what you say here is mere empty words.


Marx as a category of Hegel means Marx as a branch, an offshoot of Hegel. I find it unsurprising that those philistine Trotskyists would want to butcher Hegel from Marxism, as to complete the ritual sacrifice of all that made Marxism great, to the altars of shitty activism (Yeah, sorry, that's what it is. I don't care if they say otherwise. It's activism.) and "political" role-play.
You've got some serious issue with 870. I don't think this is the place to sort it out, and furthermore, I think it's correct to say that the Trotskyist tradition is fairly Hegelian. Anyway, I don't think that getting rid of that ages old, Hermeticism bordering residues and remnants of Hegelianism necessarily leads to activism.

I also, obviously, completely disagree that it is any recognizable Hegelianism that made or makes or can ever make Marxism "great" (maybe great as in "a great philosophy of everything-that-exists", but that should definitely not be the goal Marxists set themselves).


Any link formed between determinism, teleology, fatalism and Hegelianism is the most infantile of misunderstandings and reflects oceans of ignorance. It is the most disappointing reading one could have of Hegel imaginable. It's like your missing so much, you're over-looking so much, it's philistinism at it's best. Frankly Hegel is not distinguished by idealism. Maybe within the framework of Marxism and Marxism only is he, but that already presumes that we accept Hegel's underlying logic and oppose his idealism. Otherwise, why do we pay so much attention to Hegel's Idealism in the first place? Why not whine about Descartes, or Spinoza, or Kant for fuck's sake? You're awfully good at fiery proclamations and denouncement. Coupled with the vague and unspecific way of speaking about stuff, I think that would make of you a potentially great orator and demagogue. Maybe some work should be done on personal charisma but hey, that's nothing that can't be worked on.

As for poor Hegel, people turn him into a dimwit. He has his underlying logic but sticks that godawful idealism on top of it, as if it had nothing to do with that "underlying logic". Maybe he was scared for his tenure. Or couldn't muster the courage to go with these new found principles of the revolutionary method because he was a good Lutheran and his parents taught him well his entire childhood.

As for whining about Descartes, Spinoza or Kant, Rafiq, the answer is quite simple and in fact obvious; none of these have been proclaimed to have devised an essential method which Marx simply took as his own and reached monumental results in "applying it" (just the thought of the logic of the self-moving Absolute being applied to capitalism boggles the mind; well, this particular human mind, not the Universal Mind of course). From the last quarter of the 19th century to this day a person learning about Marxism will undoubtedly confront such naive judgement pointing to a disastrously wrong direction. That's why.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Frankly I find it ridiculous to deny Marxism as Hegelian. Hegelian as in that which distinguishes Hegel from ideologues and philosophers before him (which Marx concurs with). Marx criticized Hegel from Hegel. He did not write about how Hegel's new ideas were wrong and that the old ones were right. He presumed those new ideas, took from them what needed to be taken. He refined and sophisticated them and in the process transformed them. It is still Hegelian. It is identifiably Hegelian. Hegel posited a new understanding of history, Marx didn't say that the old one was correct. He simply transformed this new understanding.
This does not shed any light on how Marx actually engaged with Hegel. It's notable that you have not used a single quotation from Hegel's works to justify your claims. At what point, while Marx was trying to critically transcend Hegel, does Marx become distinguished from him? Your case for Marx as a mere "offshoot" grows more suspect by the second. I don't think anyone here would deny that Marx owed Hegel (and Aristotle, and Feuerbach, among others) a great debt.

It's so sad how Hegel is dismissed when there are treasures infinitely more applicable today then ever to be found in his works. Marx as a category of Hegel means Marx as a branch, an offshoot of Hegel. I find it unsurprising that those philistine Trotskyists would want to butcher Hegel from Marxism, as to complete the ritual sacrifice of all that made Marxism great, to the altars of shitty activism (Yeah, sorry, that's what it is. I don't care if they say otherwise. It's activism.) and "political" role-play.
Trotskyists do not seek to "butcher" Hegel from Marx. If they do, please explain how this is, but without your usual polemical excesses and stupidities.

EDIT: As regards post #6, do you even know what teleology is? And referring to fatalism and determinism separately is redundant.

[Rafiq]

However, from reading both sets of texts and other texts dealing with this problem, I can't conclude anything apart from the fact that Marx's criticism indeed hits the foundations of that particular kind of idealism (which would mean that in order to do some class analysis one is better off getting rid of any traces of what's important for Hegel's idealism in particular, and idealism in general too)

It is inarguable if you don't argue for it, but merely assert it.
Which "basic logical presumptions" upon which Marxism obviously depends are Hegelian? What do you mean exactly by "Hegelian" here?

Links throughout the entirety of this incoherent mess festering in straw-men arguments and more self-righteous ignorance there is a pattern I can't simply ignore. You keep criticizing me for not elaborating, as though we're having an active discussion, as though we're on some kind of live chat. These are things I would assume anyone familiar with either Marx or Hegel would understand as a given. I truly believe that you know what I'm talking about. Okay, I was wrong. So what do you do? You go on with the belligerent shit-slinging, as though my post was alive, as though you're actually having a back and forth discussion with me through this choppy pile of shit post you've made. Surely by the style of the post alone one would think so. Which leads me to my point: Why do you keep re-hashing the same criticisms? Because you find it necessary to respond to every line of text bit by bit. It's obnoxious, it makes any reply or discussion on the matter incredibly difficult. Why can't you just formulate a coherent body of text which as a whole will address the underlying foundations of my post instead of treating them as isolated, unrelated fun facts (which are wrong, according to you)? Get it yet?

The point is that this is deeply telling of your logic in the first place and it speaks volumes with regard to your "anti-philosophy" stance. This is what I mean when I say philistinism. Truth does not exist unless it forms a part of a whole. Sure you can go and say it's all nonsensical and no coherent pattern is visible but you're wrong.

Firstly what do I mean by Hegelian? In your own words, "Hegel's Idealism in particular", i.e. as opposed to the idealism before him. One cannot overlook your completely dismissive tone here, either. As though Hegel, and the rest of philosophers before him are all worthless in that they just find new and creative means by which they express their Idealism. Marx himself would find such a notion ridiculous. Since you're so keen on having me elaborate (and HONESTLY I don't think this is even honest: I think you're playing some kind of stupid devil's advocate to see if I know what I'm talking about. Like you know EXACTLY what I'm talking about, and if you don't, who the FUCK are you to accuse me of "not having bother with Hegel"?), I'll give you someting (and honestly, I don't have the energy, time or intuition to write a fucking essay on the subject, this has been debated numerous times by several different intellectuals. You make it seem like I'm making wildly outlandish claims. I hate these stupid trivial "fun facts" which are nothing but logical deductions of core presumptions. I am concerned with the latter, of all things.

Firstly let's take the concept of the Absolute, which you are so keen on taking a big shit on mindlessly.

Taken literally for what Hegel posits it to be, completely you're right Marxism is completely opposed to it. This is a given. You wouldn't have had to elaborate on that, because we all know that. The point is that the notion of something trans-historical process by which the "relative" forms a part of, re-affirms, or whatever you like, is Hegelian. The notion of history as the history of class-warfare is an Absolute. Identifiable not through a trans-historical idea, but by historically evident events which allow us to come to this pattern, or statement about the nature of development, or what have you. This would be a materialist reading of Hegel which you claim is impossible (which evidently Marx DID). Now I'm no fool, this is not alone ground-breaking sufficiency. It's an example. I can't flood this discussion with the whole of Hegel and Marx for you to see the connection. Bourgeois-rationalists and AS empricists are so keen on single, ground-breaking fun facts that change everything rather than several different factors which allow us to see patterns which are evidently verifiable, which in turn allow us to form logical deductions.

Let's look at the notion of Totality for history. Marx understood history in these terms which is why he made statements like "asia fell asleep in history". For Marx, history was not simply a matter of events. Social epochs as a whole are totalities by which the events within it are moments. One reading can have the "totality" be all of history, but this does not mean it is the only possible reading. None the less, the pattern, and structure, is Hegelian. That's my point. Nobody argued Hegel is perfect, or that all of Hegel literally is compatible with materialism and Marxism. But Hegel is important . This discussion isn't about whether we are to oppose Hegel. It's about WHAT we oppose him for: Hint, it's not for being Hegel himself. We are talking about logical foundations of thought, rather than their literal content. MEGAMAN asks me to provide "quotes" by Hegel to affirm my argument. I could think of nothing stupid. Like the literal recorded evidence in history is basis for historical analysis. No, no, the French revolution was about liberty, because that's what the self-declared evidence states. No, no, the Peasant's wars in Germany were about theological disagreements. It's painfully stupid.

It doesn't end there for Totality. You posit that totality proclaims everything to be harmonious in composing the whole but this isn't the case for either Hegel or Marx. Let's take capitalist totality in Hegelian terms. It means you can't have silicon valley without the barbarism of the Congo (for previous materials that go into the computer). It's contradictory. That's totality, it's not about harmony. And yes this is very evident in Marx's works, such as Kapital. I can't even believe you're trying to suggest Marxism can do without Hegel, that there's just "leftover residue" from Hegel.

You know what, you're right in a way. There is a residue that is idealist in nature. This doesn't mean it's identifiably a Hegelian phenomena, it is Idealist residue, not necessarily "Hegelian" residue. And now it becomes a discussion on semantics. IN the right context it would make sense to call it Hegelian, since that which distinguishes Marxism from Hegelianism is materialism. Sure, but as a whole, no. The residue you're talking about may be closer to literal Hegel, but that doesn't mean "Hegelianism" itself is the culprit? Does that make sense to you? No? I don't give a fuck. I'm trying too hard to make this understandable to you to give a fuck anymore. Wasted energy.

You're no idiot (unlike certain others in this forum, I cannot say who as it is against the forum rules to flame). Your priorities are just erroneous. You overlook things of importance, and you place on a pedestal the trivial.


"movement" or "moment" you meant in the first place).


Okay, it was confused, and movement was a grammatical error. My point is for Hegel rather than all history having a single purpose, this is only perceivable ("purpose") based on the conditions of that which you perceive from. So for example the notion of a final moment, can only be defined by the moment you are already in.


Apart from that and following from the very principle of Hegel's thought - the postulate that the final, material existence is ideal - it's only obvious that human history is teleological (like every damn thing that apparently exists) in that it represents a medium through which the Absolute develops itself and comes to self-understanding. When one discards this starting point they're better suited not to end up with a teleology of sorts which projects a plan and a purpose where none can be discerned.


Okay, let me be frank. Hegel's understanding of history was not to form grand fatalist declarations about history. It was about finding identifiable patterns in understanding the development of human history. It's not teleological. It's just as teleological as the materialist conception of history. For Hegel the development of ideas was evident by their development alone: He is not saying it couldn't have happened any other way.

Remember when I talked about context for the disagreement (between Marx and Hegel)? Marx when criticizing Hegel claims that people make history, and not the other way around. Again it is the context of the criticism that is paramount, one has to tread very carefully as to NOT MISS important details (which is so often the case with Marx, very little the man sais is simple and almost always has a deeper meaning to it). Marx criticizes Hegel for postulating that history is an entity, which Hegel DID. So is this evidence of teleology? Does Hegel postulate that history has a final goal? No! Because the nature of this "final goal" is defined by the relative circumstances of that which we perceive it from! This MAKES ANY attribution of a trans-historical "purpose" to Hegel's understanding of history is RIDICULOUS. Hegel stated that the Absolute is relative.


That's some peculiar use of the idea of "a true disciple". Somehow radically breaking with the fundamentals of one's doctrine is tantamount to being a true disciple.

Sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever.


It makes no sense to you because you're being deliberately ignorant. If you want to PRESUME that the "fundementals" of Hegel's doctrine was Idealism then sure, Marx broke with that. But again, that's DEBATABLE. This is why your anti-philosophy stance (in the name of "objective sciences" or whatever you want) is a house of cards. What does this mean. Anti-philosophy forces you to presume philosophical concepts (Like anglo-saxon empricism, which is philosphical) and instead of recognizing it as philosophy, you recognize it as a given truth. Sounds more like ideology than anything.

On to the main point, all true disciples break with their masters. Why? Because history changes (ad that INCLUDES new revelations in sciences) and when their masters don't change, they are effectively destroying the foundations of their thought. Lenin broke with Kautsky in this manner. This is a very Hegelian notion itself. This is the point of Hegel's understanding of "national spirits". A social epoch that literally contradicts the principles of a former social epoch, can still inherit the "national spirit". Napoleon was of the enlightenment (all debates on Napoleon aside, let's play the devil's advocate), so if he met Charlamagne he would have disagreed with him immensly. But to someone like Hegel Napoleon inherited the French national spirit (AND the world spirit, but that's a different topic) precisely because he was different. Just like ISIS has fuck all to do with any caliphate. Actually, at risk of making this incoherent rambling, Marx's notion of first as tragedy second as farce is Hegelian. History is not made by deliberately re-creating dramas of the past. If you can't see the Hegelian influences here, I don't know what to say to you.

Back to the original point, only by breaking with the master and you be a true disciple. Liberalism broke with the old ways and carried on all that was holy. Communism will march bitterly through the hells of modernity carrying with it everything that is worth saving about Liberalism and modernity. Communism is the true heir to the modern age. This is the same logic as Marx as the true disciple of Hegel. Because Marx abandoned and saved all that was worth abandoning and saving about Hegel, he improved it, and carried it on.

At one point a quarter of the world's states were self-declared Marxists. Hegel gained more relevance than imaginable through the success of Marxism.


Yeah, that's a well known fairy tale dialectical materialists like to tell themselves to lull them into sleep, but I don't think it holds. This is essentially the view of the Young Hegelians who made it a fashion to claim that there is a huge contradiction between Hegel's method and his system. Which doesn't make any sense. But of course, you can demonstrate here this contradiction in a detailed account of both sides, the method and the system.


I'm just going to ignore your implication, which was "hegel wasn't just distinguished by his Idealism, it was SUPER Idealism!". Evidently the persistence of Idealism reflected the magnitude of his depth as far as his analysis of history goes. That doesn't mean it HAS to be idealist. Frankly I whole-heartedly agree that Hegel can't simply be re-hashed as materialism. As though we simply replace the word "idea" with "class struggle". I agree. There are things that are fundamentally idealist about Hegel's ideas. That doesn't mean the whole of Hegel must be thrown away.



Instead what he was interested about was the series of the embodiment of the Absolute (as much as that makes no sense for a person trying to think critically, that is, non-metaphysically); the self-development not of thinking heads confronted with specific tasks, but of the Absolute.


The absolute was relative, the absolute was defined, shaped by the development of these "particular ideas" which he was reluctant in endulging in.


So let's hear about it - what is it that distinguishes Hegel from earlier traditional philosophy?


And shit like this - do you not know yourself? Is it an outlandish, unheard of declaration that I need to "back up" with mountains of evidence (which would be necessary, honestly, this isn't a simple matter). Or are you testing my knowledge? Don't. Assume that I know what I'm talking about, because I do. Do you actually think I haven't thought any of this through? Do you actually think I am just talking out of my ass? I don't want to have a discussion on my legitimacy. If you think I'm talking out of my ass, don't talk to me and fuck off. It's beyond frustrating: ASSUME that my knowledge as far as the subject goes is relatively substantial, because it is. I'm not saying I'm this incredibly smart guy, but if I say something, it's because it stems from long-lasting encounters with several written works. What you see is the whole summation of my interpretation of these works. Evidently I cannot give you a "quote" that would suffice in detailing everything.


So when you transform something into another thing radically different from it, it somehow makes sense to claim that this new thing is in some way identifiable with the old?


Absolutely.


then of course that the end point with human history is to consistently argue that whatever the state of affairs it is the product of the self-development of the Absolute. It is as it is, sorry folks.


Except this is completely contradcitory to claim that there is a teleological transhistorical entity which all history strives for. And you're wrong, by the way. Using this logic Hegel would have not held the political positions that he did. You're just misreading it in the most creatively wrong way imaginable. Not that you're unique in your misreading.

There can be nothing outside of the constrains of the "relative" stage you are in. Marx would claim that right now is the most 'advanced' or developed history has ever been. That does not mean it is subject to change, or that "this is it, sorry folks". Do you ACTUALLY believe what you're saying?


As for poor Hegel, people turn him into a dimwit. He has his underlying logic but sticks that godawful idealism on top of it, as if it had nothing to do with that "underlying logic". Maybe he was scared for his tenure. Or couldn't muster the courage to go with these new found principles of the revolutionary method because he was a good Lutheran and his parents taught him well his entire childhood.

As for whining about Descartes, Spinoza or Kant, Rafiq, the answer is quite simple and in fact obvious; none of these have been proclaimed to have devised an essential method which Marx simply took as his own and reached monumental results in "applying it" (just the thought of the logic of the self-moving Absolute being applied to capitalism boggles the mind; well, this particular human mind, not the Universal Mind of course). From the last quarter of the 19th century to this day a person learning about Marxism will undoubtedly confront such naive judgement pointing to a disastrously wrong direction. That's why.

No, Hegel was missing nothing. Marx BROKE from Hegel, he didn't "correct" him. Nobody suggested otherwise. Hegel had enough vigor to stand two feet on his own. But he left behind a legacy which went beyond him.

Also, no the asnwer isn't fucking simple. What you have answered is why YOU or anti-Hegelian concern yourself with Hegel, not why Marx dealt with Hegel's idealism particularly and specifically. The whining about Hegel I'm talking about is the general Marxist emphasis on why Hegel was wrong to any beginner (as far as Materialism or Dialectical Materialism goes, an introduction to it). Almost like "here's what hegel believed, and here is why he is wrong in this regard".

[Rafiq]

Your case for Marx as a mere "offshoot" grows more suspect by the second.

You're a clown. You make a single reason for any kind of suspicion, say it again in a different way and make it as though errors and problems are just "piling up". What the FUCK are you talking about?


This does not shed any light on how Marx actually engaged with Hegel



It's notable that you have not used a single quotation from Hegel's works to justify your claims



At what point, while Marx was trying to critically transcend Hegel, does Marx become distinguished from him?


These are all the same! It's just you whining about hte fact that I didn't provide "evidence" (meaning QUOTES (http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/78123-quotations-are-useful-in-periods-of-ignorance-or-obscurantist-beliefs)) on things any child who has the slightest understanding of Marxism should already know. Oh great job detective MEGAMAN, you sure found me!


Trotskyists do not seek to "butcher" Hegel from Marx. If they do, please explain how this is, but without your usual polemical excesses and stupidities.

EDIT: As regards post #6, do you even know what teleology is? And referring to fatalism and determinism separately is redundant.

Firstly, yes I know what teleology is. If you're going to reply to my fucking post, ask me questions, then know the level of knowledge I possess in the first place. Don't fucking talk to me if you "think" I'm talking out of my ass, I'm not. Don't talk to me like I'm a child, and don't you dare fucking insult me by asking me "hur dur du u even know what this is". Like what the fuck? Do you actually think this isn't something I've given a reasonable amount of thought into? Do you actually think that I'm literally just taking out of my ass, that I didn't think any of this through before? Here's a hint: my interest in such things is not limited to this website, it consumes my whole life.

Now I'm starting to get why Debord said Quotations are useful in periods of ignorance or obscurantist beliefs.

And then what does MEGAMANVIDEOGAEMS do? he makes s a worthless comment about how "fatalism" and "determinism" are the same thing. Tell me, what do you think this is? You're desperately looking for reasons to contradict me. Honest question, are you a child? "HA, well, you're wrong because you didn't spell X right! Gotcha!". What relavence is it that fatalism and determinism are hte same thing in this context? They are both words that are commonly used in describing Hegel (wrongfully).

But you want to know what the tip the iceberg is for me? THESE AREN'T THE SAME! Not completely at least! DETERMINISM doesn't necessarily posit that all events are inevitable, just that they are accordingly directly determined by certain factors which can very well be relative. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.


It's like, fine, you have Linksradikal who is fairly well-learned and has somewhat of an idea of what he's talking about come badger me about some nonsense. Fine. It's understandable, like I can see where he's coming from, you know? But then I have this clown come and throw pieces of shit at me? It's like being challenged by a pretty decent chess player only to have some snot nosed little brat, impressed by what he thinks is me getting my ass handed to me come and take a piss on me. Like what the fuck? You don't know what you're talking about!


I absolutely hate arguments based on the legitimacy of users. You don't find me legitimate, all of a sudden my posts become worthless and you see things that aren't there. It's beyond frustrating. By the way, becuase you're so keen on throwing into the argument worthless shit, here's something evident of the worthlessness of your post: Ludwig Feuerbach
was a Hegelian. So why mention him? You said Marx owed him just as much as he did Hegel (which is honestly not true), even if this is true all this means is that Marx was even MORE influenced by Hegel as Hegel was Feuerbach's main influence. Do I knit-pick that kind of bullshit though? No, I don't, because I like to have no-bullshit discussions.

[Rafiq]

Also relevant: Hegel completely destroyed any notion of scientific racism by positing that other countries weren't as "advanced" not by merit of their race, OR EVEN THEIR CULTURE AND NATION but because they were not as "developed". As he said: We should hope the people rise to us, but we should not lower ourselves to them. This is completely in line with the Marxist notion that other countries are backward by merit of their social condition in comparison with ours, not by any merit of roots (I.e. the People's themselves being particularly unique culprits)

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

You're a clown. You make a single reason for any kind of suspicion, say it again in a different way and make it as though errors and problems are just "piling up". What the FUCK are you talking about?
Yes, shame on me for trying to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to your sparkling lectures on philosophy. It’s amusing, though. You recently asked me the same question in another thread and when I answered, you failed to follow it up.

These are all the same!
Cute. You point out how my sentences were similar to one another and still fail to address any of them.

It's just you whining about hte fact that I didn't elaborate on things any child who has the slightest understanding of Marxism should already know. Oh great job detective MEGAMAN, you sure found me!
Incorrect. Marxists who are struggling with material may have a wealth of knowledge regarding specific quotes from The German Ideology or the Eighteenth Brumaire. But when it comes to Marxist philosophy and understanding dialectical logic, that’s a horse of a different color. This is not clear to anyone who has the “slightest” understanding of Marxism.

Firstly, yes I know what teleology is. If you're going to reply to my fucking post, ask me questions, then know the level of knowledge I possess in the first place. Don't fucking talk to me if you "think" I'm talking out of my ass, I'm not. Don't talk to me like I'm a child, and don't you dare fucking insult me by asking me "hur dur du u even know what this is". Like what the fuck? Do you actually think this isn't something I've given a reasonable amount of thought into? Do you actually think that I'm literally just taking out of my ass, that I didn't think any of this through before? Here's a hint: my interest in such things is not limited to this website, it consumes my whole life.
Then prove it, by all means. You constantly denounce many things without explaining why. And when pressed for the smallest amount of information, you react as though somebody just asked you to jump off a cliff. All you have offered are vague platitudes that anybody could spout after (poorly) skimming through the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. You have offered no explanation of your concepts and you have offered no evidence that you have even engaged with the material. This is your argument: “Marxism is Hegelian and I’m right and you’re all stupid.” Not very convincing. And your constant recourse to use oversized font just makes you look even more ridiculous.

But you want to know what the tip the iceberg is for me? THESE AREN'T THE SAME! Not completely at least! DETERMINISM doesn't necessarily posit that all events are inevitable, just that they are accordingly directly determined by certain factors which can very well be relative. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
I’ve heard that argument, and I can agree with it for the most part. The problem is that while this is an important epistemological difference, it tends to be nonexistent in practical use, including your own; I’m referring to other times when you’ve invoked “false consciousness” as a throwaway explanation for important events in history.

It's like, fine, you have Linksradikal who is fairly well-learned and has somewhat of an idea of what he's talking about come badger me about some nonsense. Fine. It's understandable, like I can see where he's coming from, you know? But then I have this clown come and throw pieces of shit at me? It's like being challenged by a pretty decent chess player only to have some snot nosed little brat, impressed by what he thinks is me getting my ass handed to me come and take a piss on me. Like what the fuck? You don't know what you're talking about!
I’ve simply been reading the thread, Rafiq. And while I do not find much common ground with LR, at least I can understand what his argument is. Your posts are mostly content-free, though. If I’ve become a gadfly to you, that’s your problem.

And again, please show how and why Trotskyists seek to butcher Hegel from Marx.

Ludwig Feuerbach
was a Hegelian. So why mention him? You said Marx owed him just as much as he did Hegel (which is honestly not true)
I said that Marx owed him a “great” debt. I did not say that the debt was equal to all other philosophers that Marx drew inspiration from. Once again, I give you an F on reading comprehension, Rafiq.

And as to why I find you “illegitimate”, it’s because of:

MEGAMAN asks me to provide "quotes" by Hegel to affirm my argument. I could think of nothing stupid.
Ladies and gentlemen, always beware of someone who refuses to provide textual proof for their arguments beyond the mere assertion that they’re right.

[Rafiq]

Ladies and gentlemen, always beware of someone who refuses to provide textual proof for their arguments beyond the mere assertion that they’re right.

A self-proclaimed Marxist claims that quotations are "proof". I'm going to go sulk in my disappointment at your existence, now. I am like an innocent old woman confronted with the most vulgar filth. My old heart can't handle it, see.

Nay never mind the oceans of text above, if there are no "direct quotes" (which actually, there are, if you read the FUCKING post) then there is no argument. Evidently you'd have me quoting the entirety of Lectures on the Philosophy of History. I concur with Debord with all my heart here. The necessity of quotes lacks ignorance on the subject of which it pertains. You cannot be familiarized by concepts with "direct quotes". That's not how it works, you child. I can provide you as many quotes as you want, literally, I CAN. But that would only affirm the false notion that 'quotes' mean SHIT. They don't mean shit. If what I am saying is alien to you, you haven't read a word of Hegel or Marx. And if you did, you read individual words or sentences rather than the whole point.

If you don't have a decent understanding of Marxism in relation to Hegel (Since you are keen on claiming even those familiar with Marxism might not know) get the fuck out of here, you don't belong in this discussion. And that's nothing to say for fucking attacking me when you don't know shit.


And again, please show how and why Trotskyists seek to butcher Hegel from Marx.


I just thought it was convenient for the Trot bloc on this WEBSITE to want to butcher Hegel from Marx, which would immensely trivialize Marxism and make it a matter of "common sense" fitting perfectly within the parameters of our present standards of reason (LIBERAL rationalism, mind you!). Through this, all the obscurantism, all the "specified" nonsense, all the worthless activism and posturing would go hand in hand with this new "Marxism".

If you don't think I've provided anything to support my assertions, especially in the above, you either haven't read anything, or your'e talking out of your ass. Maybe both.


I’m referring to other times when you’ve invoked “false consciousness” as a throwaway explanation for important events in history.


WHAT? Now I KNOW you're talking out of your ass! Even if I were to do this, what the fuck does this have to do with determinism? If we define false-consciousness as acting on class interests that are not your own, how does your conclusion make any sense? False consciousness does not mean "They don't agree with me or communism". It means they are not acting upon their interests as a CLASS. If you don't think social classes with identifiable interests exist, you're not a Marxist. Trade-union consciousness, which is not revolutionary consciousness, is NOT a form of false consciousness. So again, you're talking out of your ass.

Since you're a child let me elaborate: What you're trying to say is that, apparently, I posit that worker's are inevitably prone to Communism. I have never suggested this. This is a blatant lie. You "back this up" (WHERE ARE THE QUOTES BY THE WAY?! WHINE WHINE WHINE!) by saying I claim false consciousness as an explanation for "important events in history". I don't really know what hte fuck you're talking about, but even this would have nothing to do with determinism, since other forms of consciousness, like trade-union consciousness (which is not necessarily Communist!) exist and are still class-consciousness. That doesn't mean they are capable of taking state power and COHERENTLY fighting the class enemy. No, Marxism was never determined. Marxism was a god-sent gift to the working class that made them truly self conscious in certain events. Marxism is the forbidden fruit of knowledge that was NOT historically necessitated by any means. Marx's greatness was not determined. It was chance. Roll the dice again and he could never have even been born and something as cohesive would never have existed. Surely loosely related ideas would have formed but never in such a manner (or they were not likely to).


Your posts are mostly content-free, though

Want to know why you're full of shit? because if there was ANY single paragraph written by Marx that was not up for interpretation there would be NO disagreements over him and this thread would not exist. You can take a giant quote and interpret it however you want, you and Deformed Zimmerman's State (ergh, I mean Five Year Plan) have been very keen on this. You know what it's called? Dishonesty and ignorance. I could quote anything and I could elaborate on why it means X. But you will STILL disagree: It doesn't make a difference! There are no breakthrough fun facts, no direct quotes which are going to sustain everything I am saying. That isn't how logic works, it's not how arguments work.

That's why Linksradikal isn't asking for any fucking quotes, he's asking for elaboration and what exactly I mean. Because he's not a fucking moron (unlike a potential user who I am not at liberty to identify). Quotes are meaningless, quotes are for people who don't know how to read the actual content. We are in this thread and I PRESUME everyone who is participating it has read Marx, and Hegel too (if you haven't get the FUCK out). So there's no point in my "quoting" anything, we already know what they had to say. We're now making logical deductions and arguing based off of them.

Want to know what MEGAVIDEOGAME is going to say? He's going to say it's a cheap excuse for not providing "proof". He's learned from Five Year Zimmerman how to be a dishonest troll. He is unable to conceptualize that his notion of proof, is wrong.

But go ahead, by all means. Maybe a 100th time you will be less of an ass.

[Thirsty Crow]

Anyway. Just had bit of a tumble with writing a response and all got deleted. Maybe another time.

In the meantime:


Marx BROKE from Hegel, he didn't "correct" him.

And:


You know what, you're right in a way. There is a residue that is idealist in nature. This doesn't mean it's identifiably a Hegelian phenomena, it is Idealist residue, not necessarily "Hegelian" residue.

In conjunction with:
Frankly I find it ridiculous to deny Marxism as Hegelian. Hegelian as in that which distinguishes Hegel from ideologues and philosophers before him (which Marx concurs with).

And especially:
Marx criticized Hegel from Hegel. He did not write about how Hegel's new ideas were wrong and that the old ones were right.

I'm sure I'll be on the receiving end of the rage for failing to respond to the Totality of the argument, but I'll be damned if I can wrap my head around what exactly is being argued here. As if anyone here argued that Marx took sides in that debate within the idealist camp and favored Descartes for instance.

Maybe an example of a dialectical contradiction? Marx broke from Hegel and did not break from Hegel, or something to that effect.

Anyway. I'd be more interested in dealing with any kind of an idealist residue. And am pretty much sure there's only one way to do it, namely - kill it with fire. But I'll try to respond to substantial points in that post.

[Rafiq]

Marx broke from Hegel from the parameters of the framework already created by Hegel. Taking phrases out of context only proves my point (about your logic).

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

A self-proclaimed Marxist claims that quotations are "proof". I'm going to go sulk in my disappointment at your existence, now. I am like an innocent old woman confronted with the most vulgar filth. My old heart can't handle it, see.
Then why did you bother joining a leftist forum if debating weakens your heart? Sounds rather counterintuitive. In other words, your simile sucks.

Nay never mind the oceans of text above, if there are no "direct quotes" (which actually, there are, if you read the FUCKING post)
No, there aren’t. Furthermore, I am not asking you to provide block-quotes a la Ismail. A couple of lines would suffice, so the audience can understand where your arguments come from. Once again, not many Marxists are intimately familiar with Hegel. But since you’ve never read him, perhaps I’m asking too much.

That's not how it works, you child.
You have frequently flamed and insulted me in all of our discussions. Not only is it unnecessary, but it’s highly unprincipled. What are you trying to accomplish by doing this? I’m not going away, Rafiq. Get over it and grow up.

I can provide you as many quotes as you want, literally, I CAN.
Then do it, already. It’s not like I’m the only one here who’s putting you on the spot.

And that's nothing to say for fucking attacking me when you don't know shit.
I’m only claiming that you know nothing. And by this point it’s pretty obvious that in regards to Hegel, you don’t.

I just thought it was convenient for the Trot bloc on this WEBSITE to want to butcher Hegel from Marx, which would immensely trivialize Marxism and make it a matter of "common sense"…
Still waiting for proof that Trotskyists here support butchering Hegel from Marx.

Since you're a child let me elaborate: What you're trying to say is that, apparently, I posit that worker's are inevitably prone to Communism. I have never suggested this. This is a blatant lie. You "back this up" (WHERE ARE THE QUOTES BY THE WAY?! WHINE WHINE WHINE!) by saying I claim false consciousness as an explanation for "important events in history".
See post #61 in this thread: http://www.revleft.com/vb/karl-marx-sexist-t176264/index.html?p=2534384

And again, bad reading comprehension. I said that you tend to invoke the term to cover up the fact that you don’t have any particular knowledge of the subject at hand.

That's why Linksradikal isn't asking for any fucking quotes, he's asking for elaboration and what exactly I mean.
LR may not have explicitly asked for quotes, but we both don’t think you’ve actually read Hegel.

He's learned from Five Year Zimmerman how to be a dishonest troll.
Five Year Plan has nothing to do with this. Stay on point, Rafiq. You’re dealing with me, not him. Oh, and by the way, I asked you for proof a while back that he defended Zimmerman in that fateful thread, and you never followed up. Gee, I wonder why….

[Thirsty Crow]

LR may not have explicitly asked for quotes, but we both don’t think you’ve actually read Hegel.

In my defense, I was jusb about to when that damn post went to ashes. But the thing is, if a person's ideas are so convoluted and vague, it would make sense to first ask for clarification and then for evidence to back up the claims being made - since these are some hefty claims about a thinker who has left original texts behind him. Of course, you're completely right that it's not that good a sign when a person harps on and on about a particular view of things put forward by someone but then doesn't back up problematic claims.

[Broviet Union]

This is actually a really interesting topic being ruined by pissy egoistic sniping.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

In my defense, I was jusb about to when that damn post went to ashes. But the thing is, if a person's ideas are so convoluted and vague, it would make sense to first ask for clarification and then for evidence to back up the claims being made - since these are some hefty claims about a thinker who has left original texts behind him. Of course, you're completely right that it's not that good a sign when a person harps on and on about a particular view of things put forward by someone but then doesn't back up problematic claims.

Agreed. Please understand however, that I was not attacking you, nor was that my intention.

[Rafiq]

Quotes are not a sufficient basis for argument. They do not prove anything as they are all subject to different interpretations. I have made my case already, as far as explaining the FACT that Marxism presumes a Hegelian structure. This is not only self-evident by ALL of Marx's texts (INCLUDING his criticism of Hegel), it is also something everyone who's ever bothered with Marx understands as a given (by the way, non-Hegelian schools of philosophy categorize Marxism as Hegelian). You aren't seeing the bigger picture. I can't just give you a few quotes and all of a sudden the whole of my argument is indisputable. Don't be a fucking moron: that's not how it works. A single sentence, paragraph or phrase in either Marx OR Hegel is WORTHLESS without the whole. If you don't understand the whole, you don't know shit.

Since you are so keen on having me provide "quotes" tell me what exactly you want me to provide a "quote" for that would at least be somewhat indicative of my claims. What exactly do you want? If you want a single phrase that is going to confirm Marxism is Hegelian, I can't give you one. Is this what you want?:

Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce


In the opening chapter of the 18th brumaire, which I'm sure you're not familiar with because you actually need me to provide you with the eternally infamous quote which every fucking child knows, Marx begins by directly mentioning Hegel, and proceeding to 'correct' him. This literally a pure example: Marx pre-supposes a Hegelian notion (world-historic facts appear twice), and then goes on with his own two cents (which does not AT ALL destroy the original Hegelian notion).

From the German Ideology:

This can be speculatively distorted so that later history is made the goal of earlier history, e.g. the goal ascribed to the discovery of America is to further the eruption of the French Revolution. Thereby history receives its own special aims and becomes “a person rating with other persons” (to wit: “Self-Consciousness, Criticism, the Unique,” etc.), while what is designated with the words “destiny,” “goal,” “germ,” or “idea” of earlier history is nothing more than an abstraction formed from later history, from the active influence which earlier history exercises on later history.


If this isn't Hegel's notion that the absolute is relative in different terms, I don't know what the fuck it is. The notion that distortions are possible only after historical events (i.e. attributing them "fatalist" qualities) from the basis of your present circumstances is Hegelian. That our notion of history is a reflection of the present, and not the past itself, is Hegelian. What does Hegel tell us? :

We learn from history that we do not learn from history


This is incredibly evident in Marxism. Marxism posits that ideology, politics are relative to our existing historical epoch, that those in power learn NOTHING from history. They do not act on world-historical facts or previous historical events, but on PRESENT circumstances. It is impossible that Greece and Persia would remain hostile, through the "building up" of tensions throughout history in a historical epoch in which the Greco-Persian wars did not exist. you know what this is? You know what I want to do to both of you, grab your heads by the fucking hair and scream loudly in your ear HEGEL HEGEL HEGEL! This is all Hegel. You're a fucking moron if you can't see the structure is intact.

I mean it's pretty fucking obvious that Hegel remained a huge influence on Marx and I'm sure you all knew that. Tell me, what the fuck are you looking for here? What is it that I'm saying do you find not evident in the works of Marx and Hegel, and Marxists afterwards?

Marx: Thus, for instance, if in England a machine is invented, which deprives countless workers of bread in India and China, and overturns the whole form of existence of these empires, this invention becomes a world-historical fact

Uh oh! What the fuck does that sound like? Sounds like Hegel's notion of totality!

The very notion of "world-historical" facts is Hegelian in nature!

The bourgeois relations of production are the last antagonistic form of the social process of production — antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonisms, but of one arising from the social conditions of life of the individuals; at the same time the productive forces developing in the womb of bourgeois society create the material conditions for the solution of that antagonism. This social formation brings, therefore, the prehistory of society to a close.


Holy fuck I don't even know how you can still be arguing with me! Can you honestly not see Hegel? Is this just "Hegelian residue" still?(!!)

But of course MEGAVIDEOGAEMS and LinksRanglo-saxon empiricism will continue to stomp their feet and yell in desperation "SHOW ME THE PROOF!" like the children they are. Perhaps if they would listen for a change, the proof would be self-evident in the whole that is their works.

Show me the fucking proof that bourgeois-liberalism is bourgeois! GIVE ME FUCKING QUOTATIONS! SHOW ME THE FUCKING PROOF THAT TEA PARTY POLITICS IS LIBERAL IN NATURE! I WANT DIRECT GROUNDBREAKING QUOTES THAT WOULD CONFIRM THIS!

To Linksradikal and MEGAchild, thought-systems and theoretical foundations are like the divine creation of the universe. To them, intellectuals say "let there be!" and so it is. Rather than the collective summation of their thought-system in its entirety, which does not consist of a long string of isolated fun-facts but theoretical foundations which allow us to realize those "fun facts", they see it as necessary to give us "phrases" or "quotations" straight out of a tumblr post in order to validate any argument in pertinence to the connection between different thought-systems. In this case, Marx and Hegel's. They demand "quotes" to confirm my assertion that Marxism is Hegelian, or that Marx was an offshoot of Hegel. How does one do this? They cannot. They know this full well, and in my inability to give them ten words of text that would directly confirm this (what do they want, some kind of self-proclaimed declaration in which Marx directly sais "i am an offshoot of Hegel"?). They are cowardly and dishonest in their argumentative etiquette. Links has a blind hatred of philosophy, out of either intellectual laziness or complete faith in hegemonic structures of philosophy, and MEGAchild at every instance thinks he is a worthy opponent of mine. Well what am I? I am nothing. Lies and ignorance against truth and understanding. That is what this is.


From the philosophy of history:

Reflections are none of his business, for he lives in the spirit of his subject; he has not attained an elevation above it. If, as in Caesar's case, he belongs to the exalted rank of generals or statesmen, it is the prosecution of his own aims that constitutes the history.


Here Hegel is saying history is not made with history in mind, but in the pursuit of "(one's) his own aims". Obviously Marxism abandoned such a position, Marxists hold that history is made by consciously trying to enact history, one's own interests have nothing to do with it. Obviously.

You know what fuck this, I don't need to do this. This is a waste of my time. Any idiot whose bothered with either Marx or Hegel should already know all of this.


How will MEGAchild and LinksradiPopper respond to this (either of them, or all of them, or some of them):

1. Bit by bit they will offer their own worthless take on the given quotes. I already explained how they are all subject to interpretation, and if they weren't, there would only be one consensus as far as Marxism goes.

2. They will emphasize the differences Marx had with Hegel (which no one is denying). This reflects their inability to see the difference between logical structures, foundations and their apparent content. Marx may have disagreed with Hegel, but the nature of such a disagreement already presumed Hegel as (largely) correct in his quarrels with modes of thought before him (I.e. previous Idealist thinkers). Obviously they will ignore this.

3. They will claim that my quotes didn't suffice my claims. My claims, which were Marxism is Hegelian. I don't know what kind of quotes (besides the entirety of Marx's works, in retrospect to Hegels) they're looking for here but I'll bet my two balls they know damned well such a demand is inappropriate in pertinence to the nature of the claim.

4. They'll just make some snarky remark about my font size.

5. Who knows. The philistine ideologues never cease to surprise me.

But go ahead, respond.

Claim that I "know nothing". Here's MEGAchild's underlying claim:

I’m only claiming that you know nothing. And by this point it’s pretty obvious that in regards to Hegel, you don’t.


The only thing that's pretty obvious is that the entirety of all of your posts, all the text you've managed to give us has only one thing in common. The nature of this pattern is quote simple: Their semblance is of origin. That is, they all originate from your ass.





See post #61 in this thread: http://www.revleft.com/vb/karl-marx-sexist-t176264/index.html?p=2534384

That was two years ago. If you don't see a change in my level of knowledge and my understanding of Marxism since the past two years, you haven't been paying any attention. I became a Marxist four years ago. If you were to dig further, maybe two years prior you would see that I had completely ridiculous views. Are you actually holding me accountable for a discussion we had in 2012? As if nothing's changed, as if I've learned nothing?


Oh, and by the way, I asked you for proof a while back that he defended Zimmerman in that fateful thread, and you never followed up. Gee, I wonder why….


The BA and those who exposed him already did a good job of that. No need for me to take credit from them.

[Rafiq]

Links, continue with your bullshit, baseless snarky comments. Like who the fuck are you? From what basis do are you able to joke? As if the joke is self evident, the post itself.

Oh! That's so ridiculous of Rafiq to say. So ridiculous by the standards of hegemonic thought-structures. They make me comfortable because I don't have to challenge them! Oh! What a poor little coward I am! What a weak little heart I have, Marxism for me is COMMON SENSE, it doesn't fundamentally challenge hegemonic ideological structures! It's perfectly compatible with bourgeois ideologue! A bit of this, and a bit of that, and PRESTO! That nasty "residue" is gone and Marxism can be shipped off to the masses in a high school text book!

And who the fuck is Links himself? When links doesn't understand something, he "Lols" at it, he thinks his ignorance and poverty of understanding is worth laughing about. I feel bad for you. "LOL' That doesn't make sense! "Sense". What does that mean for him? It means something any man you pull of the street would understand. That is Marxism for him. Rather than being a fundamental change in one's FOUNDATIONS of understanding (usually possible through class struggle), it is "common sense". Common sense means no revolution. "LOL!" those bolsheviks wanted to claim terror was necessary! Those bolsheviks thought they were the future of the world! Lol! So outlandish and strange!

Links doesn't want to step out of his intellectually LAZY comfort zone. That's what I've noticed about him throughout the entirety of all my encounters with him. I've tried to be patient and open minded but it's ridiculous.

[motion denied]

Rafiq I think you make very good points, but come on wtf.

[Rafiq]

Rafiq I think you make very good points, but come on wtf.

I'm so sick of being attacked when there is no reason to. I'm so sick of reasonable points and posts being met with snarky comments and "laughter" by merit of ignorance. Yes it bothers me. Because there's one thing this discussion and every other one has in common: They are arguing based on legitimacy. That I am not "legitimate" enough, that I'm just some kind of clown, everything I say is nonsense. No, I don't like having people tell me what I do know and what I don't. I don't like having spent so much energy and time in Hegel for the past 8 (arguably 10, depending on how you look at it) months to have someone like MEGAMAN pompously tell me "you know nothing". I hate arrogance when the tower from which you must stand to be arrogant is not there. I hate people who are wrongfully arrogant. If you know your shit and you want to talk down to me, that's fine, because you know your shit. But when you don't know anything and you respond to my posts like I'm some dimwitted child, this is BEYOND offensive, disrespectful and outside of the internet would warrant physical assault.

I don't mind users who disagree with me. That's fine, if you want to have a reasonable discussion about why you think I am wrong, go ahead. I don't see anything wrong with this. My problem is with dishonsty and blatant disrespect. All the fiery comments I've ever made was a reaction to the baseless disrespect and borderline personal attacks leveled against me. I don't like having people tell me I'm ridiculous. If you want to have a discussion with me, then do it as an equal. An equal intellectual entity. This whole argument was based on their presumption that I don't "know enough". This is bullshit. Any idiot can see I've given everything I've ever said quite a bit of thought. Don't viciously "correct" me about something which I've already thought about, and invested a lot of time into which any dipshit could devise if they thought about the subject for two minutes. It's like, really? You don't think I've thought about that?

It's like how "experts' would tell me "Well, the thing about Communism is that it's good on paper, bad in experience". REALLY? You don't think I've ever been confronted with that, or thought about it? Damn! Better renounce everything, you SURE taught me!

[blake 3:17]

O my goodness, what silly business.

At the OP and others interested I'd recommend a book called Understanding Hegelianism https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8346293-understanding-hegelianism I believe it was based on a seminar or lecture course, and it deals with 20th century interpretations of Hegel. Anyways it throws offers some very interesting readings of both Marxist and non-Marxist encounters with Hegel and offers some pretty direct and probing questions of the various interpretations. I had been relatively sympathetic to the Frankfurt School but have recognized many of their very severe limitations. The chapter on Deleuze is quite interesting.

Edited to add: @Rafiq -- you were making some good points earlier, but the stuff in giant font sizes is impossible to read. Just try to clarify what you're saying.

[Thirsty Crow]

Quotes are not a sufficient basis for argument. They do not prove anything as they are all subject to different interpretations.Dear child, let me tell you a story (...to chill the bones lol) of my adventures in the land of academic make belief and its basis. In a very short summary.

The thing is, you can either read the text(s) without projecting your own bias into it (as for example Lenin did when he admitted to "trying to read Hegel materialistically", adding that he simply disregarded notions such as "the Absolute", God, "Idea") - you know, to actually reconstruct the flow of argument and its basic point, and no, this isn't impossible no matter what folks like White tell you, in case of history - since texts are manifestly not subject to different interpretations; it wa Hegel's explicit and pervasive project to realize idealism and oppose materialism at any cost. You can claim he did a subterfuge of a kind by explicitly claiming this, meaning he actually meant the opposite (and Totality knows that every thing is and is not itself at the same time), but then you'd have to prove it.

Now, when it comes to summarizing such texts, it is indispensable not only to have a vague, egotistic impression of understanding, but to actually deal with it. For instance, you claim that for Hegel the Absolute is relative; apart from possible equivocations (arising normally from your idea that you can interpret the text in any way you damn please) centering on the meaning of "relative", this is pure nonsense. The Absolute is what is it precisely because it is not the relative - the finite, the world of things, notwithstanding the fact that Hegel conceptualizes this illusory existence as the product of the Absolute and its self-development. This also shows in part that it is a complete nonsense to claim that the idea of history being a history of class struggle "is an Absolute"; it is not. To spell it out for you, you would 1) have to show what the notion of the Absolute means and does in Hegel's work and 2) how this idea from the Manifesto corresponds to precisely this since you claim there is a significant continuity between the two. In order to do that you need to understand the texts dealing with this problem; and I claim, apart from childish rage and disbelief, you do not. Especially Hegel's, whose introduction to the lectures of the philosophy of history you could read to see what constitutes philosophical history - that which the man tells us is his goal.

But I said I'd connect this to my own experience in the field of literary academia (yeah, I'm specifying it now). The sad truth is that it is largely based on precisely this moronic idea that the texts themselves do not really matter as they are amenable to a potentially infinite variation of interpretation; which is only tailored to suit the needs of the highly "specialized" sub-fields which can't let themselves be shown as having no relevance and explanatory power over all literature (one of the best examples is the unforutnate wandering of the post-colonial theory and its reworking of the concept of the colonial; so much and I kid you not, that Rabelais' Pantagruel becomes a colonial/post-colonial text; I don't remeber either the author's name or the work's title and don't feel like going through the heaps and heaps of photocopies to find it - so either believe me or don't). Anyway, the point is very much the same - fuck the text and what it says cause I want to do something with it. It's just that it can't work that way.

And one simple point should suffice; if there are numerous possible interpretations, and obviously you do not point out the criteria of sorting them our, then you could just as well have a totally ridiculous interpretation of Marx - even better, with distorted quotes - without any basis of your own, except for I AM RAFIQ AND HOW DARE YOU SULLY THIS DOCTRINE LIKE THAT. This doesn't work. It cannot.


I have made my case already, as far as explaining the FACT that Marxism presumes a Hegelian structure. This is not only self-evident by ALL of Marx's texts (INCLUDING his criticism of Hegel), it is also something everyone who's ever bothered with Marx understands as a given (by the way, non-Hegelian schools of philosophy categorize Marxism as Hegelian).

The same old tune - it's self-evident. Well guess what - it isn't. It can't be. It won't ever be. There's reasonable ground to assume that the dispute over pretty fundamental issues concerning Marxism isn't done. Of course, this doesn't only concern the understanding of Marx's texts but also the way the constructed basis of his thought is used to understand the world of today.

This also means there is no single Marxism; there are at best schools of Marxism. This means I couldn't give a rat's ass about what reactionary and anti-Hegelian schools of thought think of Marxism (I'm highlighting "and" since I presume you think it is sufficient to be anti-Hegelian to "reach" Marxism; this is patently not the case).


You aren't seeing the bigger picture. I can't just give you a few quotes and all of a sudden the whole of my argument is indisputable. Your one point is that the Absolute is relative for Hegel.

This needs, cries out for a detailed scrutiny of his thought and also supported not by one quote but by numerous - because it is patently false (or, as I said, dependent on a particular, idiosyncratic use of the word "relative").

You see, as a guy who's read the Phenomenology, the lectures on the philosophy of history, and the Science of Logic, this just doesn't compute. I don't claim I've read these as a Superior Mind or that I'm infallible; far from it.


Since you are so keen on having me provide "quotes" tell me what exactly you want me to provide a "quote" for that would at least be somewhat indicative of my claims. What exactly do you want? If you want a single phrase that is going to confirm Marxism is Hegelian, I can't give you one. Is this what you want?:See above.

If "relative" is to be understood as limited, in relation to something - thus conditioned, then this makes of your statement that the Absolute is relative for Hegel a terribly bad joke and a tragicomic misreading. That is why I first ask for clarification of terms, because I do not want to rule out at the outset that you may be onto something.




From the German Ideology:

This can be speculatively distorted so that later history is made the goal of earlier history, e.g. the goal ascribed to the discovery of America is to further the eruption of the French Revolution. Thereby history receives its own special aims and becomes “a person rating with other persons” (to wit: “Self-Consciousness, Criticism, the Unique,” etc.), while what is designated with the words “destiny,” “goal,” “germ,” or “idea” of earlier history is nothing more than an abstraction formed from later history, from the active influence which earlier history exercises on later history.



If this isn't Hegel's notion that the absolute is relative in different terms, I don't know what the fuck it is.Pick up your Hegel and leave your Plekhanov and Engels intepreted Marx as the basis of what Hegel said. You're quoting the part where Marx goes head on against Hegel while thinking it is an elaboration of the underlying Hegelian method.

The immediate remedy for it is to go and read the introduction to the lectures on philosophy of history - they're online. Don't forget to pay attention.

Anyway, the moral of the story: go read some Hegel dimwit. Marx did; I suppose this and the fundamental, radical critique he did enabled him to state that not only his dialectic method is different from Hegel's, but it is directly opposed to it.

But then it somehow makes sense to suppose Marx was a dimwit himself in failing to recognize that hius method is Hegelian; or preferrably, to try to weasel your way out of this conundrum by shifting the meaning of plain old words. Something is in direct opposition to another thing? Oh well it's just the unity of opposites you know.

And about this very post - since it is simply impossible to talk to you without a metaconversation - why I shortened it. Quite franky, cause I couldn't be bothered with sifting through Phenomenology and Logic at nearly 4 AM, all the while translating the Serbo-Croatian into English. That's one reason.

The other, more general reason for cutting up your posts which seems to irritate you to no end is to identify specific points in your argument and deal with those; thus for instance if you're wrong, and you are, about the "Absolute that is relative", it is apparent you do not understand what's correctly called Hegelian.

That's how things work; I prefer to focus on particular points as opposed to a meandering and ill-defined stream of councsciousness. Although Joyce made much of it. Sadly, you don't.

[Rafiq]

Links, my problem with you is that you have too much to say about nothing. Marx and Hegel, or anyone else for that matter in their entirety constitute an objective, real set of positions which are not necessarily open for interpretation. Single phrases and quotes, however, without the whole, are. Almost all wrong-interpretations of Marx (or Hegel) stem from an inability to grasp the whole that is their constitution. Even if you read all of their works, if you don't understand you still don't get it. Lack of understanding is evident from inconsistency in interpretation. I agree with you, their texts are important. But I cannot provide you "proof" for anything by giving you phrases or quotes. Since you're so keen on demanding them, you can very well present some of your own. I already have (which frankly, you claim were invalid)

Frankly what you have yet to understand is what I mean by Hegelian, and if you do, you're being blatantly dishonest (and YOU being consciously dishonest is something I doubt).

Was Marx blatantly disagreeing with Hegel in some of the quotes I had provided? Yes, no one denies this. But the nature of this disagreement still presumes fundamentally Hegelian logical structures to be true. Would you disagree? I can't see how anyone would disagree. I think your problem is that you are unable to identify these Hegelian structures, and simply presume them to be a given. For you, the "Hegelian structure" is the fundamentally idealist utilization of Hegel's logic. But what you don't know is that there is a logic itself which is a structure, evident in Marx. No it's not simply residue. You can "agree" with Marx in different ways that you'd like to, but taking Hegel from Marx is destroying Marxism (instead, it is fitting Marx within the paradigm of other ideologies, something academic Marxist-economists are keen on doing).

And let's get something clear, Links: I've read Hegel. Granted, I haven't read all of his texts, but I have read Hegel's philosophy of History and Phenomenology of Mind (if you don't believe me, I have the hard copies and I can send you a picture if you'd like). I highly doubt you've ever read a single word of Hegel without some kind of external interpretation. Because I sure as hell haven't. I don't know anybody who can read Hegel and just Hegel without at least

1. Some background information on what others claim Hegel is

2. Having read books, texts ABOUT Hegel (which I have)

and so on. You don't understand Hegel. I'm not trying to be vicious, but you don't. You might understand what they'd teach you in a philosophy course, but that's not Hegel. I don't care what you've read, your understanding is povert and superficial.

Your understanding of Marx isn't so different either. Your understanding of class struggle as a specific concept outlined in the manifesto, rather than a concept which is evident in all of Marx's texts, which constitutes major component of Marxism itself and which reacts with everything is rather ridiculous. You see all of Marx's works as bit by bit, revealing different facts. I think this is greatly telling. You're not bad at reading things outright, I would assume you have decent reading comprehension. What you lack is the solid comprehension of ideas.


(as for example Lenin did when he admitted to "trying to read Hegel materialistically", adding that he simply disregarded notions such as "the Absolute", God, "Idea")


I am aware with Lenin's take on Hegel. He also had quarrel with the notion of "national" and "world" spirits. Frankly, I think this is erroneous.


If "relative" is to be understood as limited, in relation to something - thus conditioned, then this makes of your statement that the Absolute is relative for Hegel a terribly bad joke and a tragicomic misreading. That is why I first ask for clarification of terms, because I do not want to rule out at the outset that you may be onto something.


You're just declaring things. You aren't explaining how, or why. The absolute is always relative for Hegel. That's common sense. I'm so sick of you dismissing things just because you find something confusing. You really have the audacity to claim I'm self important? The absolute is that which exists indiscriminate of that which is relative is the first statement. What is relative is what is relative to your according historical circumstance, what is temporary, what is subject to change, you can put that however you'd like. So if we say that the Absolute is relative, this sounds a bit contradictory, no?

All this means is that the Absolute itself is relative to our historical circumstance (not the absolute is EQUAL to the relative, again it is a moving relationship). In other words how we perceive the absolute, how we perceive that which is indiscriminate of the relative - is relative.

But for Hegel this doesn't tarnish the notion of the absolute. The absolute still lives in the relative, too. Because for Hegel, the relative can reveal that which is absolute too. Just as ideology can reveal that which is objectively true.

What Marx was trying to say, and I will re-quote:

while what is designated with the words “destiny,” “goal,” “germ,” or “idea” of earlier history is nothing more than an abstraction formed from later history, from the active influence which earlier history exercises on later history.

The words "destiny, goal, germ, idea" are other words for an absolute, relative to LATER history (our current epoch). What is the difference? Materialism, of course. And again, I agree, this isn't just substituting "idea" for "class struggle" or whatever. Renouncing Hegel's idealism means renouncing a lot of Hegel's outwardly, superficial nature. But there are things about Hegel which go beyond Hegel himself. That's what I'm trying to say. The skeleton is still there, albeit with new flesh and skin (which are important, mind you!).


Your one point is that the Absolute is relative for Hegel.


Did you read my post? That was my point as far as denouncing your claim that Hegel is "fatalist".

Thus, for instance, if in England a machine is invented, which deprives countless workers of bread in India and China, and overturns the whole form of existence of these empires, this invention becomes a world-historical fact

Please explain to me how this isn't a Hegelian statement? This is totality. I can't tell if you simply don't know what I mean by Hegel. No, Hegelian for me doesn't mean agreeing with Hegel, but what distinguishes Hegel from his predecessors. Hint, it's not "super idealism". Or are you going to claim Feurbach was also not a Hegelian, and that Marx's disagreement with him was that he was "too Hegelian"?

Read this statement carefully: I never take arguments by authority. But I've invested a lot of time into Hegel, and into others who have read Hegel too. You are claiming things without backing them up, everything you are saying I have never come across a semblance in what I have read. So what, you just want me to take your word for it? What YOU'RE saying is quite alien and outlandish, Links.


radical critique he did enabled him to state that not only his dialectic method is different from Hegel's, but it is directly opposed to it.

That doesn't mean it's not Hegelian. If Marx opposes it from Hegel, then it's still Hegelian. Hegelianism goes beyond Hegel himself, links. Any good idiot should know that.

No one denies Marx disagreed from Hegel. But from where, from what point of measurement? Was it OUTSIDE Hegel? Marx used to be a Young Hegelian for fuck's sake.

For someone being so simplistic... You really are going to tell ME to read Hegel? YOU need to read Hegel links, but this time your head needs to be OUT of your ass.


But then it somehow makes sense to suppose Marx was a dimwit himself in failing to recognize that hius method is Hegelian

Oh, another straw man. You don't understand what context means. In the Marx-Hegel disagreement, saying Marx is Hegelian would obfuscate things. No, Marx is Marx and Hegel is Hegel.

There's an old bedouin saying: I against my brother, my brother against my cousins, my cousins, brothers and I against outsiders.

It's not that I know something about Marx that he himself didn't: It's that Marx already knew this, and found it unimportant to proclaim it. He used to be a Young Hegelian for fuck's sake. He's been there and done that. The Hegelian logical structure is a given at this point. But it's still Hegelian. The dirty truth of philosophy is that when someone invests so much time in opposing someone, they in the process become part part of them, and their legacy. That's beyond the point though, because the case in Marx is different.


thus for instance if you're wrong, and you are, about the "Absolute that is relative", it is apparent you do not understand what's correctly called Hegelian.

Since it doesn't look like you understand Hegel at all, here is a resource I found useful somewhere along the last eight months or so in my ventures with Hegel (ironically, 2014, if it can be distinguished by anything, it is the opening up of Hegel for me)

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/help/mean06.htm#04

Linked to the question of subject and object, is the question of the absolute and the relative. The historical view of concepts does not mean that "everything is relative"; within the relative is an absolute - but the absolute is also relative, or as Lenin says: "in (objective) dialectics the difference between the relative and the absolute is itself relative." [Philosophical Notebooks].

Hegel says: "The different stages of the logical idea are to be treated as a series of definitions of the Absolute". [Shorter Logic § 160n]. In other words, in the history of thought and in the development of any specific theory or concept, at various stages or key points of development, an aspect of the truth is fixed upon and "elevated into an absolute"; but in the course of its own development, this absolute proves to be relative, and is overcome by a new concept. But what is absolute is retained and carried forward; the absolute is the whole movement, which is submerged in the notion, but is also contained in that relative concept which is a stage in the genesis of the notion. "The definition, which declares the Absolute to be the Idea, is itself absolute. All former definitions come back to this". [Shorter Logic, § 213]

For instance, capitalism is just a passing stage in the history of humanity (a relative), but it is a necessary stage (absolute). Or the nature of a thing is a matter of opinion, but not just a matter of opinion. And so on.


Just to be clear I don't agree with everything here. I take it a step further and claim that the notion of a "stage in the history of humanity" (the notion of a stage being an absolute) is relative to something like capitalism. So the absolute is relative to what you falsely perceive to be the relative (capitalism). This is how my take on Hegel might differ from others. This can work in a number of ways, which is why I talked about interpretation. This is a logical structure which is found in the very core of Marxism. It is for reasons like this, that Marxism is Hegelian. So superficially, and apparently NO, Marx is DIRECTLY OPPOSED to Hegel's apparent formulation. But the foundation and structure itself is left intact. Understand? It was the nature of how these things were expressed which is what Marx had quarrel with.

[Red Star Rising]

Frankly I find it ridiculous to deny Marxism as Hegelian. Hegelian as in that which distinguishes Hegel from ideologues and philosophers before him (which Marx concurs with). Marx criticized Hegel from Hegel. He did not write about how Hegel's new ideas were wrong and that the old ones were right. He presumed those new ideas, took from them what needed to be taken. He refined and sophisticated them and in the process transformed them. It is still Hegelian. It is identifiably Hegelian. Hegel posited a new understanding of history, Marx didn't say that the old one was correct. He simply transformed this new understanding. It's so sad how Hegel is dismissed when there are treasures infinitely more applicable today then ever to be found in his works. Marx as a category of Hegel means Marx as a branch, an offshoot of Hegel. I find it unsurprising that those philistine Trotskyists would want to butcher Hegel from Marxism, as to complete the ritual sacrifice of all that made Marxism great, to the altars of shitty activism (Yeah, sorry, that's what it is. I don't care if they say otherwise. It's activism.) and "political" role-play.

Just to quickly link back to the OP's question and steer away from this silly online shouting match - How exactly is Hegelian Marxism separate from "conventional" Marxism if Marxism is naturally Hegelian? I don't think that Hegel's contributions to history and philosophy ought to be discarded, but if they are fundamental to Marxism aren't all Marxist "Hegelian Marxists"?

[Rafiq]

Just to quickly link back to the OP's question and steer away from this silly online shouting match - How exactly is Hegelian Marxism separate from "conventional" Marxism if Marxism is naturally Hegelian? I don't think that Hegel's contributions to history and philosophy ought to be discarded, but if they are fundamental to Marxism aren't all Marxist "Hegelian Marxists"?

Rather than being a separate tendency, it is a matter of emphasis. "Hegelian" Marxists like Lukacs spend more time analyzing and understanding Hegel. To put it simply, they spend more time 'bothering' with Hegel.

[Red Star Rising]

Rather than being a separate tendency, it is a matter of emphasis. "Hegelian" Marxists like Lukacs spend more time analyzing and understanding Hegel. To put it simply, they spend more time 'bothering' with Hegel.

Well, I agree completely that Marxism is heavily influenced by Hegel. I haven't got very far through Das Kapital yet but, from what I can tell, Marx's dialectical method and analysis of value is distinctly Hegelian. He begins with the commodity and finds within it two diametrically opposed and yet inseparable factor that have "synthesised" to form the notion of value or socially necessary labour time, within this he finds another two factors - concrete and abstract labour etc etc. While not exactly the good old thesis, antithesis, synthesis we all know and love (or hate if you are like some on this forum) it seems to have emerged from Hegel's basic ideas.

Similarly, Marx's ideas on the material form(s) of value seem to be somewhat Hegelian - Hegel dealt with the concept of constant change. Marx applied this to commodities and the value objectified in them - if we begin with flax, this gets turned into the use-value linen which is then transformed either directly into clothing or indirectly into money then some other commodity in a constant state of circulation and exchange. But the value itself remains the same.

But still, Hegel's area of philosophy was so broad that it could apply to a great many ideologies. The term Marxist-Hegelianism would probably be more accurate, but this is like saying Table-Wood or flower-plant, fairly obvious and pointless. You can't really study Marxism without coming across Hegelianism.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Quotes are not a sufficient basis for argument.
Conversely, a lack of quotes is hardly a basis for avoiding an argument.

I made my case already, as far as explaining the FACT that Marxism presumes a Hegelian structure. This is not only self-evident by ALL of Marx's texts…You aren't seeing the bigger picture. I can't just give you a few quotes and all of a sudden the whole of my argument is indisputable. Don't be a fucking moron: that's not how it works. A single sentence, paragraph or phrase in either Marx OR Hegel is WORTHLESS without the whole. If you don't understand the whole, you don't know shit.
My entire problem with your position is that it is one-sided. Since you’ve accepted that Marx broke from Hegel, does it necessarily make sense that Marxism has an inherent “Hegelian” structure, full stop? Marx and Hegel did use dialectical logic and even shared some concepts in that regard. But having said this, that doesn’t mean that it was necessarily the same logic, though they shared a common ancestor. Indeed, one of Marx’s biggest concerns at the time was to preserve the advances of Hegel’s method while at the same time rejecting his conclusion resulting in Spirit. Nor did the dialectic itself did not originate with Hegel, but in Ancient Greece before being popularized by Plato and Aristotle.

Bearing all this in mind, how does it make sense to regard Marx as a subset of Hegel? Your formulation ignores the particularities of those thinkers and focuses too heavily on their similarities with regard to philosophical pedigree, which allows you to avoid engaging with the material. Your crappy “quotes” amply illustrate your dishonesty here: “Oh, Marx mentioned Hegel here, that means that Marxism is Hegelian.” It would make more sense to regard Marxism as the critical transcendence of bourgeois philosophy in general, without denying Hegel’s legacy in the slightest.

I mean it's pretty fucking obvious that Hegel remained a huge influence on Marx and I'm sure you all knew that.
Nobody denied this, so did you why bring it up?

That was two years ago. If you don't see a change in my level of knowledge and my understanding of Marxism since the past two years, you haven't been paying any attention. I became a Marxist four years ago. If you were to dig further, maybe two years prior you would see that I had completely ridiculous views. Are you actually holding me accountable for a discussion we had in 2012? As if nothing's changed, as if I've learned nothing?
Insulting your opponent? Check. Failing to back up your ideas? Check. Trolling with longwinded ranting and meandering to overwhelm your opponent and declare victory? Check. Doesn’t seem like much has changed to me.

The BA and those who exposed him already did a good job of that. No need for me to take credit from them.
So you take up a position which accuses a former poster of being a closet racist and apologist for the police (for which no evidence exists, by the way) and when you are pressed to back up your claims, you pass the buck instead. Stay classy, Rafiq.

[Rafiq]

Quotes are not a sufficient basis for argument. They do not prove anything as they are all subject to different interpretations. I have made my case already, as far as explaining the FACT that Marxism presumes a Hegelian structure. This is not only self-evident by ALL of Marx's texts (INCLUDING his criticism of Hegel), it is also something everyone who's ever bothered with Marx understands as a given (by the way, non-Hegelian schools of philosophy categorize Marxism as Hegelian). You aren't seeing the bigger picture. I can't just give you a few quotes and all of a sudden the whole of my argument is indisputable. Don't be a fucking moron: that's not how it works. A single sentence, paragraph or phrase in either Marx OR Hegel is WORTHLESS without the whole. If you don't understand the whole, you don't know shit.

Since you are so keen on having me provide "quotes" tell me what exactly you want me to provide a "quote" for that would at least be somewhat indicative of my claims. What exactly do you want? If you want a single phrase that is going to confirm Marxism is Hegelian, I can't give you one. Is this what you want?:

Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce


In the opening chapter of the 18th brumaire, which I'm sure you're not familiar with because you actually need me to provide you with the eternally infamous quote which every fucking child knows, Marx begins by directly mentioning Hegel, and proceeding to 'correct' him. This literally a pure example: Marx pre-supposes a Hegelian notion (world-historic facts appear twice), and then goes on with his own two cents (which does not AT ALL destroy the original Hegelian notion).

From the German Ideology:

This can be speculatively distorted so that later history is made the goal of earlier history, e.g. the goal ascribed to the discovery of America is to further the eruption of the French Revolution. Thereby history receives its own special aims and becomes “a person rating with other persons” (to wit: “Self-Consciousness, Criticism, the Unique,” etc.), while what is designated with the words “destiny,” “goal,” “germ,” or “idea” of earlier history is nothing more than an abstraction formed from later history, from the active influence which earlier history exercises on later history.


If this isn't Hegel's notion that the absolute is relative in different terms, I don't know what the fuck it is. The notion that distortions are possible only after historical events (i.e. attributing them "fatalist" qualities) from the basis of your present circumstances is Hegelian. That our notion of history is a reflection of the present, and not the past itself, is Hegelian. What does Hegel tell us? :

We learn from history that we do not learn from history


This is incredibly evident in Marxism. Marxism posits that ideology, politics are relative to our existing historical epoch, that those in power learn NOTHING from history. They do not act on world-historical facts or previous historical events, but on PRESENT circumstances. It is impossible that Greece and Persia would remain hostile, through the "building up" of tensions throughout history in a historical epoch in which the Greco-Persian wars did not exist. you know what this is? You know what I want to do to both of you, grab your heads by the fucking hair and scream loudly in your ear HEGEL HEGEL HEGEL! This is all Hegel. You're a fucking moron if you can't see the structure is intact.

I mean it's pretty fucking obvious that Hegel remained a huge influence on Marx and I'm sure you all knew that. Tell me, what the fuck are you looking for here? What is it that I'm saying do you find not evident in the works of Marx and Hegel, and Marxists afterwards?

Marx: Thus, for instance, if in England a machine is invented, which deprives countless workers of bread in India and China, and overturns the whole form of existence of these empires, this invention becomes a world-historical fact

Uh oh! What the fuck does that sound like? Sounds like Hegel's notion of totality!

The very notion of "world-historical" facts is Hegelian in nature!

The bourgeois relations of production are the last antagonistic form of the social process of production — antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonisms, but of one arising from the social conditions of life of the individuals; at the same time the productive forces developing in the womb of bourgeois society create the material conditions for the solution of that antagonism. This social formation brings, therefore, the prehistory of society to a close.


Holy fuck I don't even know how you can still be arguing with me! Can you honestly not see Hegel? Is this just "Hegelian residue" still?(!!)

But of course MEGAVIDEOGAEMS and LinksRanglo-saxon empiricism will continue to stomp their feet and yell in desperation "SHOW ME THE PROOF!" like the children they are. Perhaps if they would listen for a change, the proof would be self-evident in the whole that is their works.

Show me the fucking proof that bourgeois-liberalism is bourgeois! GIVE ME FUCKING QUOTATIONS! SHOW ME THE FUCKING PROOF THAT TEA PARTY POLITICS IS LIBERAL IN NATURE! I WANT DIRECT GROUNDBREAKING QUOTES THAT WOULD CONFIRM THIS!

To Linksradikal and MEGAchild, thought-systems and theoretical foundations are like the divine creation of the universe. To them, intellectuals say "let there be!" and so it is. Rather than the collective summation of their thought-system in its entirety, which does not consist of a long string of isolated fun-facts but theoretical foundations which allow us to realize those "fun facts", they see it as necessary to give us "phrases" or "quotations" straight out of a tumblr post in order to validate any argument in pertinence to the connection between different thought-systems. In this case, Marx and Hegel's. They demand "quotes" to confirm my assertion that Marxism is Hegelian, or that Marx was an offshoot of Hegel. How does one do this? They cannot. They know this full well, and in my inability to give them ten words of text that would directly confirm this (what do they want, some kind of self-proclaimed declaration in which Marx directly sais "i am an offshoot of Hegel"?). They are cowardly and dishonest in their argumentative etiquette. Links has a blind hatred of philosophy, out of either intellectual laziness or complete faith in hegemonic structures of philosophy, and MEGAchild at every instance thinks he is a worthy opponent of mine. Well what am I? I am nothing. Lies and ignorance against truth and understanding. That is what this is.


From the philosophy of history:

Reflections are none of his business, for he lives in the spirit of his subject; he has not attained an elevation above it. If, as in Caesar's case, he belongs to the exalted rank of generals or statesmen, it is the prosecution of his own aims that constitutes the history.


Here Hegel is saying history is not made with history in mind, but in the pursuit of "(one's) his own aims". Obviously Marxism abandoned such a position, Marxists hold that history is made by consciously trying to enact history, one's own interests have nothing to do with it. Obviously.

You know what fuck this, I don't need to do this. This is a waste of my time. Any idiot whose bothered with either Marx or Hegel should already know all of this.


How will MEGAchild and LinksradiPopper respond to this (either of them, or all of them, or some of them):

1. Bit by bit they will offer their own worthless take on the given quotes. I already explained how they are all subject to interpretation, and if they weren't, there would only be one consensus as far as Marxism goes.

2. They will emphasize the differences Marx had with Hegel (which no one is denying). This reflects their inability to see the difference between logical structures, foundations and their apparent content. Marx may have disagreed with Hegel, but the nature of such a disagreement already presumed Hegel as (largely) correct in his quarrels with modes of thought before him (I.e. previous Idealist thinkers). Obviously they will ignore this.

3. They will claim that my quotes didn't suffice my claims. My claims, which were Marxism is Hegelian. I don't know what kind of quotes (besides the entirety of Marx's works, in retrospect to Hegels) they're looking for here but I'll bet my two balls they know damned well such a demand is inappropriate in pertinence to the nature of the claim.

4. They'll just make some snarky remark about my font size.

5. Who knows. The philistine ideologues never cease to surprise me.

But go ahead, respond.

Claim that I "know nothing". Here's MEGAchild's underlying claim:

I’m only claiming that you know nothing. And by this point it’s pretty obvious that in regards to Hegel, you don’t.


The only thing that's pretty obvious is that the entirety of all of your posts, all the text you've managed to give us has only one thing in common. The nature of this pattern is quote simple: Their semblance is of origin. That is, they all originate from your ass.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MEGAMANTROTSKY View Post

See post #61 in this thread: http://www.revleft.com/vb/karl-marx-...html?p=2534384
That was two years ago. If you don't see a change in my level of knowledge and my understanding of Marxism since the past two years, you haven't been paying any attention. I became a Marxist four years ago. If you were to dig further, maybe two years prior you would see that I had completely ridiculous views. Are you actually holding me accountable for a discussion we had in 2012? As if nothing's changed, as if I've learned nothing?

Quote:
Oh, and by the way, I asked you for proof a while back that he defended Zimmerman in that fateful thread, and you never followed up. Gee, I wonder why….
The BA and those who exposed him already did a good job of that. No need for me to take credit from them.




Links, my problem with you is that you have too much to say about nothing. Marx and Hegel, or anyone else for that matter in their entirety constitute an objective, real set of positions which are not necessarily open for interpretation. Single phrases and quotes, however, without the whole, are. Almost all wrong-interpretations of Marx (or Hegel) stem from an inability to grasp the whole that is their constitution. Even if you read all of their works, if you don't understand you still don't get it. Lack of understanding is evident from inconsistency in interpretation. I agree with you, their texts are important. But I cannot provide you "proof" for anything by giving you phrases or quotes. Since you're so keen on demanding them, you can very well present some of your own. I already have (which frankly, you claim were invalid)

Frankly what you have yet to understand is what I mean by Hegelian, and if you do, you're being blatantly dishonest (and YOU being consciously dishonest is something I doubt).

Was Marx blatantly disagreeing with Hegel in some of the quotes I had provided? Yes, no one denies this. But the nature of this disagreement still presumes fundamentally Hegelian logical structures to be true. Would you disagree? I can't see how anyone would disagree. I think your problem is that you are unable to identify these Hegelian structures, and simply presume them to be a given. For you, the "Hegelian structure" is the fundamentally idealist utilization of Hegel's logic. But what you don't know is that there is a logic itself which is a structure, evident in Marx. No it's not simply residue. You can "agree" with Marx in different ways that you'd like to, but taking Hegel from Marx is destroying Marxism (instead, it is fitting Marx within the paradigm of other ideologies, something academic Marxist-economists are keen on doing).

And let's get something clear, Links: I've read Hegel. Granted, I haven't read all of his texts, but I have read Hegel's philosophy of History and Phenomenology of Mind (if you don't believe me, I have the hard copies and I can send you a picture if you'd like). I highly doubt you've ever read a single word of Hegel without some kind of external interpretation. Because I sure as hell haven't. I don't know anybody who can read Hegel and just Hegel without at least

1. Some background information on what others claim Hegel is

2. Having read books, texts ABOUT Hegel (which I have)

and so on. You don't understand Hegel. I'm not trying to be vicious, but you don't. You might understand what they'd teach you in a philosophy course, but that's not Hegel. I don't care what you've read, your understanding is povert and superficial.

Your understanding of Marx isn't so different either. Your understanding of class struggle as a specific concept outlined in the manifesto, rather than a concept which is evident in all of Marx's texts, which constitutes major component of Marxism itself and which reacts with everything is rather ridiculous. You see all of Marx's works as bit by bit, revealing different facts. I think this is greatly telling. You're not bad at reading things outright, I would assume you have decent reading comprehension. What you lack is the solid comprehension of ideas.

You're just declaring things. You aren't explaining how, or why. The absolute is always relative for Hegel. That's common sense. I'm so sick of you dismissing things just because you find something confusing. You really have the audacity to claim I'm self important? The absolute is that which exists indiscriminate of that which is relative is the first statement. What is relative is what is relative to your according historical circumstance, what is temporary, what is subject to change, you can put that however you'd like. So if we say that the Absolute is relative, this sounds a bit contradictory, no?

All this means is that the Absolute itself is relative to our historical circumstance (not the absolute is EQUAL to the relative, again it is a moving relationship). In other words how we perceive the absolute, how we perceive that which is indiscriminate of the relative - is relative.

But for Hegel this doesn't tarnish the notion of the absolute. The absolute still lives in the relative, too. Because for Hegel, the relative can reveal that which is absolute too. Just as ideology can reveal that which is objectively true.

What Marx was trying to say, and I will re-quote:

while what is designated with the words “destiny,” “goal,” “germ,” or “idea” of earlier history is nothing more than an abstraction formed from later history, from the active influence which earlier history exercises on later history.

The words "destiny, goal, germ, idea" are other words for an absolute, relative to LATER history (our current epoch). What is the difference? Materialism, of course. And again, I agree, this isn't just substituting "idea" for "class struggle" or whatever. Renouncing Hegel's idealism means renouncing a lot of Hegel's outwardly, superficial nature. But there are things about Hegel which go beyond Hegel himself. That's what I'm trying to say. The skeleton is still there, albeit with new flesh and skin (which are important, mind you!).

Did you read my post? That was my point as far as denouncing your claim that Hegel is "fatalist".

Thus, for instance, if in England a machine is invented, which deprives countless workers of bread in India and China, and overturns the whole form of existence of these empires, this invention becomes a world-historical fact

Please explain to me how this isn't a Hegelian statement? This is totality. I can't tell if you simply don't know what I mean by Hegel. No, Hegelian for me doesn't mean agreeing with Hegel, but what distinguishes Hegel from his predecessors. Hint, it's not "super idealism". Or are you going to claim Feurbach was also not a Hegelian, and that Marx's disagreement with him was that he was "too Hegelian"?

Read this statement carefully: I never take arguments by authority. But I've invested a lot of time into Hegel, and into others who have read Hegel too. You are claiming things without backing them up, everything you are saying I have never come across a semblance in what I have read. So what, you just want me to take your word for it? What YOU'RE saying is quite alien and outlandish, Links.

That doesn't mean it's not Hegelian. If Marx opposes it from Hegel, then it's still Hegelian. Hegelianism goes beyond Hegel himself, links. Any good idiot should know that.

No one denies Marx disagreed from Hegel. But from where, from what point of measurement? Was it OUTSIDE Hegel? Marx used to be a Young Hegelian for fuck's sake.

For someone being so simplistic... You really are going to tell ME to read Hegel? YOU need to read Hegel links, but this time your head needs to be OUT of your ass.

Oh, another straw man. You don't understand what context means. In the Marx-Hegel disagreement, saying Marx is Hegelian would obfuscate things. No, Marx is Marx and Hegel is Hegel.

There's an old bedouin saying: I against my brother, my brother against my cousins, my cousins, brothers and I against outsiders.

It's not that I know something about Marx that he himself didn't: It's that Marx already knew this, and found it unimportant to proclaim it. He used to be a Young Hegelian for fuck's sake. He's been there and done that. The Hegelian logical structure is a given at this point. But it's still Hegelian. The dirty truth of philosophy is that when someone invests so much time in opposing someone, they in the process become part part of them, and their legacy. That's beyond the point though, because the case in Marx is different.





Since it doesn't look like you understand Hegel at all, here is a resource I found useful somewhere along the last eight months or so in my ventures with Hegel (ironically, 2014, if it can be distinguished by anything, it is the opening up of Hegel for me)

https://www.marxists.org/reference/a.../mean06.htm#04

Linked to the question of subject and object, is the question of the absolute and the relative. The historical view of concepts does not mean that "everything is relative"; within the relative is an absolute - but the absolute is also relative, or as Lenin says: "in (objective) dialectics the difference between the relative and the absolute is itself relative." [Philosophical Notebooks].

Hegel says: "The different stages of the logical idea are to be treated as a series of definitions of the Absolute". [Shorter Logic § 160n]. In other words, in the history of thought and in the development of any specific theory or concept, at various stages or key points of development, an aspect of the truth is fixed upon and "elevated into an absolute"; but in the course of its own development, this absolute proves to be relative, and is overcome by a new concept. But what is absolute is retained and carried forward; the absolute is the whole movement, which is submerged in the notion, but is also contained in that relative concept which is a stage in the genesis of the notion. "The definition, which declares the Absolute to be the Idea, is itself absolute. All former definitions come back to this". [Shorter Logic, § 213]

For instance, capitalism is just a passing stage in the history of humanity (a relative), but it is a necessary stage (absolute). Or the nature of a thing is a matter of opinion, but not just a matter of opinion. And so on.


Just to be clear I don't agree with everything here. I take it a step further and claim that the notion of a "stage in the history of humanity" (the notion of a stage being an absolute) is relative to something like capitalism. So the absolute is relative to what you falsely perceive to be the relative (capitalism). This is how my take on Hegel might differ from others. This can work in a number of ways, which is why I talked about interpretation. This is a logical structure which is found in the very core of Marxism. It is for reasons like this, that Marxism is Hegelian. So superficially, and apparently NO, Marx is DIRECTLY OPPOSED to Hegel's apparent formulation. But the foundation and structure itself is left intact. Understand? It was the nature of how these things were expressed which is what Marx had quarrel with.




Always good to see posters demonstrate solid reading comprehension of both the argument and the subject at hand. Can you provide me one thing in that little response of yours I did not already address previously?

[Rafiq]

Oh, silly me, I forgot this:


So you take up a position which accuses a former poster of being a closet racist and apologist for the police (for which no evidence exists, by the way) and when you are pressed to back up your claims, you pass the buck instead. Stay classy, Rafiq.


I'm not an administrator so it's not my job. Unless you want to say it's some kind of conspiracy, he was banned for this reason. Why would he be banned otherwise? Ismail's conspiratorial machinations?

HA! I wasn't even aware of this: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2639320&postcount=139

THIS WAS EXACTLY HOW FIVE YEAR PLAN CONDUCTED HIMSLEF!

Anyway:


The decision is hardly surprising. There was not nearly enough evidence to even convict him of manslaughter.

Yeah, you are. Like about every single detail relating to the case besides the fact that Martin was shot and died. The reason no charges were initially brought (until the establishment vultures in the black bourgeoisie sank their claws into the case) is the very same reason Zimmerman wasn't convicted: there was no evidence contradicting Zimmerman's general account of the events, which were that he was attacked and was being brutally beaten when he decided to open fire for what he claimed were reasons of self-defense.

Is Zimmerman, who is actually hispanic, really a secret racist just looking to shoot black people? I have no idea. All I know is that the case was going to be an uphill battle from the start.

What evidence do you have that Martin was "racially profiled"? And, assuming that there was profiling involved (which there is no evidence for), since when is murder or manslaughter an appropriate charge to apply to somebody guilty of profiling?

The question is, what evidence is there that Zimmerman racially profiled Martin?

I said that somebody following you is not justification for a violent attack, if that is indeed what happened. So you are abhorring an argument I have never made.

I've said it once, and I'll say it again. Nothing upsets the liberal tails on this forum more than not assuming that all accusations of racism and sexism are true, regardless of the evidence. You can accuse Trotsky, a Jewish person, of working hand-in-hand with Hitler's genocidal government, and you can enjoy your own thread where you can pursue this "theory" by saying things that are demonstrably false.

But if you want to point out a few facts that might complicate the abstract narratives being mindlessly repeated on this thread, about how racism, channeled through the evil spirit of Zimmerman, killed Trevyon, well then you must be a sleazy, trashy piece of filth who doesn't care about racism and doesn't deserve to live. Kill 'em quick!


Fuck I'm glad I didn't see that thread while it was going on. I'm going to stop quoting him because that pompous liberal piece of shit makes my stomach churn. Who would of thought that my absolute hatred towards Five Year Plan was justified all along? I know a fucking dishonest liberal piece of shit when I see one. OF COURSE Lucretia isn't going to go ahead and say "Hey guys Zimmerman was a good guy". But he's APOLOGIZING HIM in the face of all the evidence, in the face of the POLITICAL LINE that has been drawn by the incident. Someone, especially someone like Lucretia isn't going to argue about something logically in the name of pure thought. IT VEILS A REAL POSITION. The Zimmerman case is a case where you take a side as far as the issue of racism goes. Ass covering, weak apologia by Lucretia reveals which side he was on: This comes to another conclusion. If EVEN the bourgeois media is painting Zimmerman as a murderer, why would he not be? What reason would the 'spectacle' have to lie to us about something like this? Is the white genocide real after all?

You don't come to conclusions about someone for what they claim to be. That's why you're not a Marxist, MEGAkid. That's why Marxism is HEGELIAN. History does not say "I am history", we do not judge the French revolution by "people wanting liberty". FURTHERMORE we do not judge the logical structures of something like Marxism based on small phrases or sentences, quotes taken out of context which are meaningless without the whole summation of what composes Marxist thought (I have provided a number of quotes, unfortunately. You'd think users have already read those works from which the quotes were derived, but apparently not). Marx woudl neve rhave said "Hey guys, Marxism still retains a fundementally Hegelian structure of logic". When Marx quoted Hegel, he quoted him presuming everyone whose anyone had a decent understanding of Hegel, and Marx's previous position as a young Hegelian. Evidently, it is inarguable that Marxism is Hegelian. If you were to argue otherwise, you have to be disagreeing of the definition of what is Hegelian and what is not.

Was Marx blatantly disagreeing with Hegel in some of the quotes I had provided? Yes, no one denies this. But the nature of this disagreement still presumes fundamentally Hegelian logical structures to be true. Would you disagree? I can't see how anyone would disagree. I think your problem is that you are unable to identify these Hegelian structures, and simply presume them to be a given. For you, the "Hegelian structure" is the fundamentally idealist utilization of Hegel's logic. But what you don't know is that there is a logic itself which is a structure, evident in Marx. No it's not simply residue. You can "agree" with Marx in different ways that you'd like to, but taking Hegel from Marx is destroying Marxism (instead, it is fitting Marx within the paradigm of other ideologies, something academic Marxist-economists are keen on doing).


This is an issue of legitimacy. I am not "legitimate" so I need to provide "evidence". It doesn't have to be quotes, or phrases. Your childish mind, as a last resort, prompts you to ask: "Proof it!". Did Marx ever provide proof or evidence in his philosophical texts or polemics? Did Hegel himself ever provide "evidence"? No. Because such "evidence" is inappropriate for the context. Unless you haven't read Hegel or Marx, in which case it would be reasonable to ask for some text. Marxist theory is not anglo-saxon empricism. Bourgeois rationalism, which replaces gods for the altars of reason, cannot comprehend that reason itself has a fundamentally human character, human bias, and oozes with traces of human consciousnesses from the start. For that, bourgoeis rationalism is not so different from the notion of a God: They see god rather than being a projection of the human mind and condition, as ultimate and absolute legitimacy. Similarly they see the same as far as "reason" goes. Only a fucking moron who hasn't read shit in this thread will claim I'm not making any arguments or points. Are you really going to argue that, MEGAkid? That I haven't been making arguments? You're a fucking troll and you piss me the fuck off. I hate people who blatantly lie in the face of truth. I am ceceptible to trolling more easily than others because I like to naively presume most people are honest in their conduct. I have an absolute hatred of deliberate suppression of truth, I absolutely DESPISE cutting corners and lying in arguments. ESPECIALLY when they think they aren't lying. Rather than challenging me or posing a threat to what I have posited, all you have done is piss me off with your trolling. I don't get mad when I'm proven wrong, or rightfully called out. I don't lie. I don't have a fucking "ego" that I need to so preciously defend. If you destroy me, I will agree with you. It is what I have been doing for the past 4 years. My views have changed and improved over the years because of that.

But I can smell a dishonest piece of shit (not saying that's you, because that's against the board rules) when I see one. You're trolling. Just admit it and move on.

Also when the fuck did I claim that Marxism is Hegelian because Marx mentions Hegel in his works? That's a blatant lie.

[Rafiq]

Oh and by the way, you don't fucking snip out phrases out of context and respond to them in hacked out, ridiculous bits when you're ignoring vital arguments. You're being a fucking coward. You, like Five Year Plan, chiseled my posts in order to adequately meet your responsive and comprehensive needs. If you can't respond to my post in its whole, get the fuck out and don't respond.

Honestly your posts are so worthless, does anyone else notice that all of MEGAkid's posts go something like this:

Alright Rafiq, you're wrong. I'm going to point out a straw man, and by the way, STOP MAKING FUN OF MY NAME! WAAH!:


Long string of text taken out of context
Well you're wrong, because my straw man, unlike you is easier to tackle and respond to.

Sentence or so which without the rest of the argument means little
Well Rafiq, since I'm going to take advantage of not presenting your important and vital arguments, I'm going to respond to this and pretend I am somehow making a worthwhile point.

Some kind of trivial, worthless sentence I made that's relatively off topic that shouldn't be responded to because it has nothing to do with the argument, also its most likely something personal
GIVE ME PROOF WHERE I OR HE SAID THAT. I WANT DIRECT PROOF THAT GOES ALONG THE LINES OF "I Lucretia, support George Zimmerman". THE SELF PROCLAIMED PHRASES OF THE PERSON IN QUESTION ARE THE ONLY EVIDENCE! WHITE SUPREMECISTS AREN'T BAD PEOPLE, THEY ONLY WANT TO STOP WHITE GENOCIDE!

Let's pretend this is something that is an attack on Libertarians, and their silly ideas

LIBERTARIANS ARE RIGHT: DO YOU OPPOSE THE FREE ASSOCIATION OF INDIVIDUALS AND A FREEEEEEEEE MARKET? (insert response detailing why this is erreneous) WHAT! STRAW MAN! LIBERTARIANS NEVER CLAIMED THEY WANTED A HELL ON EARTH LIKE SOMALIA, SLAVERY, OR SOMETHING THAT WON'T WORK! THERE'S NO PROOF OTHER THAN YOUR PROPER DISSECTION OF THEIR VIEWS! SHOW ME ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE WHERE LIBERTARIANS CLAIM TO BE PETITE BOURGEOIS!

11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111
Worthless Drivel Worthless Drivel Worthles Drivel Worthless Drivel

11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111
Worthless Drivel Worthless Drivel Worthles Drivel Worthless Drivel

11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111
Worthless Drivel Worthless Drivel Worthles Drivel Worthless Drivel

There you go Rafiq. Take THAT. I'm so confident now!

[Rafiq]

It's such bullshit that I have to extensive lengths providing detailed and comprehensive arguments addressing all these points, and people like MEGAboy are allowed to respond in such a manner. I spend so much time trying to get my arguments and points across, only to be met with THAT? To be reduced to THAT? Like what the fuck!

[Red Star Rising]

Just because Marx criticized Hegel doesn't mean his work wasn't Hegelian. It's like saying a businessman criticizing the ideas of a rival businessman can't be a Capitalist.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Just because Marx criticized Hegel doesn't mean his work wasn't Hegelian. It's like saying a businessman criticizing the ideas of a rival businessman can't be a Capitalist.
This is a poor analogy. Comparing capitalism, an entrenched system bound by the law of value to philosophy, the study of the nature of knowledge, makes no sense at all. This is not to say that the two have nothing to do with one another, but there's a world of difference between Marx's engagement with Hegel and Steve Jobs criticizing Bill Gates because the latter doesn't invest in alternative medicine.

And what exactly do you mean when you say "Hegelian"? If you mean that Marx's philosophical method bears earmarks of Hegel's legacy, you would certainly be correct. But this is not what Rafiq is claiming; he wishes to regard Marx as a mere offshoot of Hegel, and this is wrong for reasons that I have already stated. Marx broke from Hegel as a materialist, not as a Hegelian.

[Red Star Rising]

This is a poor analogy. Comparing capitalism, an entrenched system bound by the law of value to philosophy, the study of the nature of knowledge, makes no sense at all. This is not to say that the two have nothing to do with one another, but there's a world of difference between Marx's engagement with Hegel and Steve Jobs criticizing Bill Gates because the latter doesn't invest in alternative medicine.

And what exactly do you mean when you say "Hegelian"? If you mean that Marx's philosophical method bears earmarks of Hegel's legacy, you would certainly be correct. But this is not what Rafiq is claiming; he wishes to regard Marx as a mere offshoot of Hegel, and this is wrong for reasons that I have already stated. Marx broke from Hegel as a materialist, not as a Hegelian.

I did't say I agree entirely with Rafiq - I agree that Marxism is Hegelian in nature but it is still independent of Hegel n many ways. Marxism is an evolution of Hegelianism not a branch of it. Links I believe is claiming that Hegelianism and Marxism have nothing in common, this is false.

[Rafiq]

In the domain of the intellectual - in the domain of thought - for something to be an OFFSHOOT it must be DISTINCT from the source in a way lest it is not an offshoot to begin with, but a regurgitation.

[Rafiq]

This is a poor analogy. Comparing capitalism, an entrenched system bound by the law of value to philosophy, the study of the nature of knowledge, makes no sense at all. This is not to say that the two have nothing to do with one another, but there's a world of difference between Marx's engagement with Hegel and Steve Jobs criticizing Bill Gates because the latter doesn't invest in alternative medicine.

You haven't read shit about what I've said, don't you dare fucking say "Rafiq is saying x" when you don't know shit. You're arguing like a child, we all know Marx broke and disagreed with Hegel, that isn't the question. The question is whether fundamentally Hegelian logical structures remained (AND ITS NOT JUST DIALECTICS, OR EVEN PRIMARILY DIALECTICS, STOP TALKING MEGA YOU DONT KNOW SHIT ABOUT ANYTHING, YOURE JUST TRYING TO SOUND LIKE YOURE A PART OF THE BIG BOYS DISCUSSION) , and the answer is yes. If we take Marx and compare him with other intellectuals, he sticks out. This distinction clearly puts him in the domain of Hegel, if you don't see it, you don't know shit.

Also, you don't know how analogies work. Of course there's a "world of difference". That's why it's a fucking ANALOGY. For fucks sake, it's like someone saying "hur, Orwell wasn't making animal farm allegoricalcuz Stalin wasn't a pig named Napoleon lololol". You LITERALLY have the mind of a child. You're incapable of critical thought. You're missing the point of his analogy: Marx didn't disagree with Hegel from the point of Hegels opponents or the opponents of Hegelianism (reactionaries). He broke from Hegle FROM Hegel. I've already explained this in detail, anyone who wants can go fucking read the long and detailed posts. Don't you dare try to fucking argue with me, it's most likely going to be some bullshit I already addressed. I will not repeat myself. Read my earlier posts then come back.

MEGA is the same as Five Year Zimmerman: a troll whose only capable of making STRAW MEN en masse and then proceeding to feel good when he burns them (improperly, mostly, to add insult to injury).

Oh and the thread on feminism: I didn't respond because I basically fucked your stupid ass response up, and you replied through ass coverings that didn't contradict anything I said and was just you trying to justify yourself and change the point of your argument. Like you literally post shit because you have to say something, and people call ME egotistical! You made a straw man about "recruiting" women or propaganfixing when I didn't say shit about that. Then you said women under capitalism are oppressed and that it's important not to forget that. Who the fuck thinks otherwise? You're just saying shit to make yourself seem worth something. You're only good for regurgitating others arguments, trolling, dishonesty and making straw men. I honestly can say that I haven't ever seen a single post made by you that was worth anything. Even Lucretia/Five Year Zimmerman made one or two decent posts I can recall. You, honestly, I'm not trying to be mean, have never posted anything I can't wipe my ass with.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

I did't say I agree entirely with Rafiq - I agree that Marxism is Hegelian in nature but it is still independent of Hegel n many ways. Marxism is an evolution of Hegelianism not a branch of it. Links I believe is claiming that Hegelianism and Marxism have nothing in common, this is false.
I think you may have missed what I said earlier. It is the dialectical method that is distinctive about Marx and Hegel. Given that Marx borrowed Hegel's dialectic and made it his own, does that mean that Marx is Hegelian? I would disagree with this; the dialectic itself was not originally conceived by Hegel. Next, the basis for Hegel's method was idealist, in that it placed priority on Spirit as opposed to materialism. One could say that Marx's method is merely a reverse of Hegel's dialectic, but the different bases for their methods makes them incompatible with one another. We can claim this without denying Hegel's legacy at all, but it does not make sense for Marxism to be "Hegelian" in nature when "Hegelian" philosophy is idealist and Marxism is materialist.

Having said that, you can claim that Marxism is an "evolution" of Hegel's thought. Unfortunately, even the word "evolution" is inadequate to describe the link between these two men. Marx's method is a sublation of Hegel, in that it simultaneously reinforces its logical advances while cancelling its idealistic bases.


You haven't read shit about what I've said, don't you dare fucking say "Rafiq is saying x" when you don't know shit.
You did say the statement below, did you not?

Marx as a category of Hegel means Marx as a branch, an offshoot of Hegel.
Having said that, I won't respond to you anymore until you can stop the excessive and vicious insults.

[Rafiq]

It is the dialectical method that is distinctive about Marx and Hegel. Given that Marx borrowed Hegel's dialectic and made it his own, does that mean that Marx is Hegelian? I would disagree with this; the dialectic itself was not originally conceived by Hegel.

I can't fucking believe what I'm reading. If you're trolling you win BECAUSE I'm about to flip my fucking shit. I can't fucking believe someone ACTUALLY BELIEVES THIS! THIS IS LITERALLY PRECISELY WRONG IN A MILLION DIFFERENT WAYS!

NO IT IS NOT SOLELY DIALECITCS THAT BINDS MARX WITH HEGEL

EVEN THEN, ARE YOU ACTUALLY GOING TO TRY AND CLAIM HEGEL'S DIALECTICS WASNT COMPLETELY DISTINCT FROM THE "DIALECTICS" OF ANTIQUITY???

Throughout this whole thread, nay this whole week I have NEVER encountered such SICKENING philistinism and ignorance. How dare you partake in this thread with such ignorance. How dare you not only insult me, but everyone else including LINKS by reducing this discussion to your childish ignorance. I am honestly shocked to hear that not only is "dialectics what makes Marx and Hegel distinct" (WHAT! WHAT?? WHAT?? WHAT THE FUCK?(!!) but that:

Hegel just borrowed some old dialectic method and the rest was pure idealism lol Marx took da dialectics but everything else was hegelz idealism lol b4 Hegel it was materialism but hegle made idealism and super idealism lololololol

You're a fucking philistine. It's not even an insult at this point. It's a fact. You, are ACTUALLY a philistine and I would be surprised if you've ever read a single page in your life of Hegels or even ABOUT Hegel. FUNDEMENTALLY Hegelian concepts seen throughout Marx's works to his grave and you're going to say "lol marx n hegel had dialectics in common but data it". DO YOU ACTUALLY THINK THE WHOLE OF PHILOSOPHY IS A SINGULAR DEBATE BETWEEN IDEALISM VS MATERIALISM? ARE YOU THAT FUCKING IGNORANT? NOT ONLY DO YOU NOT KNOW SHIT ABOUT HEGEL, YOU HAVE NO BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE WHATSOEVER ON THE HISTORY OF EUROPEAN THOUGHT. IF YOURE ACTUALLY TRYING TO MAKE A DIRECT CONNECTION BETWEEN ANCIENT DIALECTICS AND HEGELS, AND IF YOUR ACTUALLY JUST GOING TO DISMISS HEGELS DISTINCT LOGIC AS "SUPER IDEALISM" YOU DESERVE TO HAVE YOUR TONGUE RIPPED OUT AND FED TO THE PIG THAT BORE YOU.

I am fucking shocked. I've never flipped my shit but this set me off. it's one thing to be ignorant, and then another to be SELF RIGHTEOUSLY ignorant. If he Read a single word of mine in this thread he wouldn't dare say ANYTHING like that.

I'm so SICK of ignorance and philstinism. You LITERALLY have the mind of a child. This folks, THIS is what I mean by these vulgar "Marxists" who only know Hegel from Hegel's idealism, in other words what Marx disagreed with him about at the same time having NO KNOWLEDGE of the nature or context of this disagreement. People ACTUALLY think dialectics is all that Marx and Hegel have in common. NOT ONLY THAT, Mega is ACTUALLY trying to say that Hegels dialectics wasn't unique and originated in antiquity. In other words, Marx has nothing specifically to do with Hegel and hes just carrying on some old method Hegel the super idealist happened to adhere to well. This CLOWN claims to have background knowledge of Marx.

I'm going to go vomit and then faint in disbelief. I fucking hate the fact that some people are allowed to talk. That by merit of being human, your "opinion" and disgusting ignorance is allowed to have a place.

The he'll go and say I'm not making any arguments. WELL MAYBE ITS BECAUSE I ALREADY MADE THEM, THATS WHY IM fucking PISSED. I give A LONG and DETAILED EXPLANATION TO BE MET WITH THAT INFANTILE PHILISTINISM? A FEW SENTENCES OF PURE BULLSHIT?

[Rafiq]

"Placed a priority of spirit instead of materialism". HOLY FUCK does he even know what spirit means? Does he even know what MATERIALISM is? I can't believe what I'm reading! I just can't fucking believe this! I've never read something so simplistically WRONG and IGNORANT. He talks like he knows what he's talking about, like he's schooling everyone. It's TROLLING and if it's not do yourself a favor STOP POSTING AND GO READ.

[Rafiq]

MEGA's genius:

" ok guys so basically Hegel and Marx have dialectics in common. Dats it. Hegel himself as a philosofffer had 2 different parts to him: dialectics and idealizms. Marx was a materializms so dey are diffrent. Marx had the dialectics but hegel didn't make da dialectics so it not hegelian. Marks dialectics is just as much like Greek dialectics as hegelz. derefore dey are not 2gathar".

FUCK. HOLY. FUCKING. SHIT. Besides the grammar HE ACTUALLY BELIEVES THIS. How DARE you say such BULLSHIT, such groundless, baseless BULLSHIT that manages to be EXACTLY wrong. A pure CARICATURE of the opponents of Hegelianism is your ACTUAL argument. How dare you try to fucking disgrace, tarnish and reduce Marx like this. You're not only not a Marxist, you're an ENEMY of Marxism. I can't wait for you to abandon all your "communist" ideas (I KNOW this Will happen MEGA, you don't have a strong grounding and you don't have the heart, you're going to flip flop pretty fucking fast, remember I said that, I can TELL as far as these things go) and piss the fuck off, STOP pretending to be a Marxist, so we don't have embarrassments like you running around spreading such BULLSHIT in Marx's name


Want to know why I'm pissed ? Because I'm a moron for taking you seriously. If you were a troll, or another idiot in rl I'd ignore you. Now we all know for sure you actually, literally don't know SHIT.

[Red Star Rising]

I think you may have missed what I said earlier. It is the dialectical method that is distinctive about Marx and Hegel. Given that Marx borrowed Hegel's dialectic and made it his own, does that mean that Marx is Hegelian? I would disagree with this; the dialectic itself was not originally conceived by Hegel. Next, the basis for Hegel's method was idealist, in that it placed priority on Spirit as opposed to materialism. One could say that Marx's method is merely a reverse of Hegel's dialectic, but the different bases for their methods makes them incompatible with one another. We can claim this without denying Hegel's legacy at all, but it does not make sense for Marxism to be "Hegelian" in nature when "Hegelian" philosophy is idealist and Marxism is materialist.

Isn't the labour theory of value, which Marxism was heavily based around immaterial? Value is not subjective like Hegel's stuff on the spirit, it isn't material, and it does include some idealist principals - Marx's analysis of value and commodity production in Das Kapital does rely on a perfect market in which cost is an accurate representation of value. While Marx acknowledges these inconsistencies in the capitalist market throughout the work I guess, not all of it is strictly material.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Isn't the labour theory of value, which Marxism was heavily based around immaterial? Value is not subjective like Hegel's stuff on the spirit, it isn't material, and it does include some idealist principals - Marx's analysis of value and commodity production in Das Kapital does rely on a perfect market in which cost is an accurate representation of value. While Marx acknowledges these inconsistencies in the capitalist market throughout the work I guess, not all of it is strictly material.
To be honest, I cannot really say much about the LTV at present, since I haven't reached that part in Capital yet. But I will comment on the rest of your post, in that I think you have a wrongheaded notion of what materialism is. Materialism does indeed emphasize that the material world is objective and exists independently of our own thought, but it does not follow that thoughts are suddenly not material or real. According to your own logic, feelings wouldn't be real, neither would labor. A commodity is embodied labor in a congealed form, but we only see the finished product and not necessarily the labor that went into it.

[Rafiq]

Isn't the labour theory of value, which Marxism was heavily based around immaterial? Value is not subjective like Hegel's stuff on the spirit, it isn't material, and it does include some idealist principals - Marx's analysis of value and commodity production in Das Kapital does rely on a perfect market in which cost is an accurate representation of value. While Marx acknowledges these inconsistencies in the capitalist market throughout the work I guess, not all of it is strictly material.

The dichotomy between Idealism and Materialism, spirit vs material as far as "how Hegelian Marxism is" is a false one. If we define Hegelian as Hegelian logical structures, forms of thought (AND NOT SIMPLY dialectics), then Hegelianism persists in Marx's materialism as well. Hegelianism goes beyond Hegel as an individual. Marxism is deeply Hegelian at core.

The worst argument ever leveled against this is that "Marx disagreed with Hegel on a number of things". Well, if Marx did not disagree with Hegel, Marxism wouldn't exist, now would it! Marx would just be a regurgitation of Hegel's ideas, and not an 'offshoot'. So saying that Marxism is Hegelian already, rightfully presumes the nature of these disagreements, without trivializing them or downplaying them. It is the worst kind of desperation, the greatest reflection of ignorance to resort to this obvious fact: "WELL!" they will say, "Marx was a materialist and Hegel was an Idealist!", as though we don't already know this. This is literally all Mega has to offer as far as this discussion goes. Historical materialism is Hegelian. We cannot simply build a barrier surrounding Marx's disagreement with Hegel: What about other forms of thought, that wouldn't even fit within the paradigm of this disagreement? Anglo Saxon empiricism? Religious idealism? Even Hegel's notion of history absolutely destroys any notion of a great man theory of history, despite the concept of world-historical individuals. The very notion of world-historical individuals already possesses the embryo of the Marxist notion of individuals in history: Hegel claims that these individuals embody certain historical phenomena (world, national-spirit), are the highest summation of their historical epoch. In Marxist terms, individuals, and the spectacle that they bring with them, embody the movement of a social class. The pattern is quite clear. If Marx turned Hegel's method on its head (WHICH AGAIN, ISNT SIMPLY DIALECTICS), this alone is still Hegelian. We are talking about foundational presumptions, a form of thought and an understanding of history in a fundamentally new way that didn't exist before Hegel, and certainly didn't exist during fucking antiquity. Never before Hegel was there a "dialectical method" applied to history, before Hegel, dialectics was entirely different both in antiquity and during medieval times: the only similarity is that they both concerned opposition, which doesn't mean shit. It was concerned with rhetoric, and structures of debate, not the development of history and the individual's relationship with history.

But of course for these vulgarists and philsitines, Marx, who constantly talks of "world-historical facts", capitalist totality and the nature of history, simply carried on Hegel's "dialectics" and left everything else. Literally in MEGA's mind, all of Hegel's works, everything of Hegel is simply super idealism. There is no forms of logic, there is no unique understanding of history, it's all "super idealism" and because materialism is the opposite of idealism, the only thing Marx has in common with Hegel is their "shared' usage of the dialectical method, which apparently Hegel borrowed from antiquity and used it for his super idealism. Hegel might be inherently idealist, but Hegelianism is not inherently idealist. Hegel himself was quite adamant about his opposition to the materialist utilization of his logic: Too bad, he already created something that went beyond him.

What does MEGA man have to say now? That I am not "emphasizing" enough the "material" rather than the "philosophical aspects". If there was ever a desperate last resort, if there was ever something someone who just HAS to say something would say for the sake of saying something - would say, it is this. No one is 'downplaying' the difference in material: This discussion doesn't concern these things, what we are talking about is whether Marxism retains fundamentally Hegelian structures and patterns. In other words, MEGA is constructing another meaningless straw man with no context. The field for his straw man doesn't even exist, he has to construct it in a dining room, even though it is inappropriate, grotesque and aesthetically obscene. After all, what kind of idiot would deny that Marx's material outwardly disagrees with Hegel? Who is saying that? if it is a given, if everyone already knows that, why the fuck is it important to talk of "not downplaying" it? From what basis? And now let's wait for MEGA to take little snips out of context and confidently respond to them like a big boy.

[Rafiq]

To be honest, I cannot really say much about the LTV at present, since I haven't reached that part in Capital yet. But I will comment on the rest of your post, in that I think you have a wrongheaded notion of what materialism is. Materialism does indeed emphasize that the material world is objective and exists independently of our own thought, but it does not follow that thoughts are suddenly not material or real. According to your own logic, feelings wouldn't be real, neither would labor. A commodity is embodied labor in a congealed form, but we only see the finished product and not necessarily the labor that went into it.

What cack! Ladies and Gentlemen: MEGA actually thinks Hegel's notion of spirit is metaphysical! I will ask again, since you did not respond: Do you even know what spirits are, or what they mean for Hegel? It has nothing to do with the "material". What a lazy fucking understanding of materialism. Materialism doesn't concern metaphysics. For Marx, metaphysics was something already dealt with by intellectuals before him. Materialism concerns the relationship between our social relationships to production, and ideas (art, politics, culture - IDEOLOGY), and the fundamental implications this has as far as historical development goes. The actual physical properties of objects, or whether ideas are neurological, physical phenomena, this is reserved for physicists, neurologists, and so on (even though Engels referred to the brain as an organ of the mind in order to re-enforce the legitimacy of his materialism). The only physical implications we can derive from materialism is this: The world, the physical world exists independently of our consciousness, something any atheist knows well.

[Thirsty Crow]

Just because Marx criticized Hegel doesn't mean his work wasn't Hegelian. It's like saying a businessman criticizing the ideas of a rival businessman can't be a Capitalist.
It doesn't make any sense whatsoever given the fact that Marx criticized vital and fundamental aspects of Hegelian philosophy, which gradually led him (and Engels) to the materialist conception of history.
And no. The theory of value postulates that the socially necessary labor time is what determines the magnitude of value; only through some clever word play can you liken that to anything "immaterial" (at least what would count as infinite for Hegelians). Anyway, I don't see the point in even trying to fit this into a Hegelian framework. It just doesn't compute. And the entire thing is based on silly redefinitions whereby suddenly Hegel is seen not as dealing with metaphysics (since y'know the World Spirit isn't an entity born of metaphysical fancy and Protestant pietist mysticism; and sure Hegel's philosophy is inherently idealist but then there can be non-idealist Hegelianism which...does what exactly with the philosophical core of Hegel's - if it repudiates it and subjects it to criticism, then it makes no sense to talk of "Hegelianism", and if it doesn't, then you have dialectical materialism which is a codeword for a farcical mistake in self-understanding) and decades old mistake on alleged "dialectical logic".

As for the analogy, it's obviously flawed since it plays on two things - socioeconomic function and business ideas. We're not dealing here with such a twofold problem.

And can we have some moderation here to calm this child down? It's learning after all. Aren't some stricter rules for this sub-forum in place anyway?

As for this idle talk of "borrowing" Hegel's "method":


My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of “the Idea,” he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of “the Idea.” With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm

So here you go. The method is exactly "the life process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of the 'Idea'", is transformed "into an independent subject" which is the "demiurgos of the real world" and vice versa, the real world becomes "only the external, phenomenal form of 'the Idea'". That's the Hegelian dialectic in a nutshell. And this is of course what teleology refers to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology


A teleology is any philosophical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy) account that holds that final causes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_cause) exist in nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_%28philosophy%29), meaning that — analogous to purpose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purpose) found in human actions — nature inherently tends toward definite ends.
Teleology was explored by Plato (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato) and Aristotle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle), by Saint Anselm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anselm_of_Canterbury) during the 11th century AD, in the late 18th century by Immanuel Kant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant) as a regulative principle in his Critique of Judgment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Judgment) and by Carl Jung (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Jung). It was fundamental to the speculative philosophy of Hegel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel).
A thing, process, or action is teleological when it is for the sake of an end, i.e., a telos or final cause. In general, it may be said that there are two types of final causes, which may be called intrinsic finality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_finality) and extrinsic finality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrinsic_finality).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology#cite_note-1)
And you can be sure apart from all this kicking and screaming here - the Idea is most definitely a "final cause" (the only important one in Hegel at that; and not only is it a kind of teleological conception of history, but it's also a theodicy).

If this isn't enough, then the relevant paragraphs from the Philosophy of Right may serve to set the record straight (though I have no doubt that further fanciful re-interpretation can be made again and again):


§ 341
The element in which the universal mind exists in art is intuition and imagery, in religion feeling and representative thinking, in philosophy pure freedom of thought. In world history this element is the actuality of mind in its whole compass of internality and externality alike. World history is a court of judgment because in its absolute universality, the particular – i.e. the Penates, civil society, and the national minds in their variegated actuality is present as only ideal, and the movement of mind in this element is the exhibition of that fact.


§ 342
Further, world history is not the verdict of mere might, i.e. the abstract and non-rational inevitability of a blind destiny. On the contrary, since mind is implicitly and actually reason, and reason is explicit to itself in mind as knowledge, world history is the necessary development, out of the concept of mind’s freedom alone, of the moments of reason and so of the self-consciousness and freedom of mind. This development is the interpretation and actualisation of the universal mind.


§ 343
The history of mind is its own act. Mind is only what it does, and its act is to make itself the object of its own consciousness. In history its act is to gain consciousness of itself as mind, to apprehend itself in its interpretation of itself to itself. This apprehension is its being and its principle, and the completion of apprehension at one stage is at the same time the rejection of that stage and its transition to a higher. To use abstract phraseology, the mind apprehending this apprehension anew, or in other words returning to itself again out of its rejection of this lower stage of apprehension, is the mind of the stage higher than that on which it stood in its earlier apprehension.
(emphases mine)

It's particularly interesting to see the remark on paragraph 343:


The question of the perfectibility and Education of the Human Race arises here. Those who have maintained this perfectibility have divined something of the nature of mind, something of the fact that it is its nature to have gnothi seanton as the law of its being, and, since it apprehends that which it is, to have a form higher than that which constituted its mere being. But to those who reject this doctrine, mind has remained an empty word, and history a superficial play of casual, so-called ‘merely human’, strivings and passions. Even if, in connection with history, they speak of Providence and the plan of Providence, and so express a faith in a higher power, their ideas remain empty because they expressly declare that for them the plan of Providence is inscrutable and incomprehensible.

(https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/pr/prstate.htm#PR341)

But to Hegel, who accepts the doctrine of the Universal Mind, the plan of Providence is actually clear. Now, can a person seriously rage and despair over an assessment of a philosophy explicitly invoking Providence as teleological?

(people might be interested in the whole range of paragraphs here, from 341 to 360)

[Rafiq]

whereby suddenly Hegel is seen not as dealing with metaphysics (since y'know the World Spirit isn't an entity born of metaphysical fancy and Protestant pietist mysticism; and sure Hegel's philosophy is inherently idealist but then there can be non-idealist Hegelianism

For Hegel the world spirit ISN'T metaphysical: This is only possible if we adhere to some Heidegger-esque notion that all philosophy before him was INHERENTLY metaphysical: Hegel's notion of the world spirit is NOT uniquely metaphysical - no Hegel did not actually believe there was a trans-material physical substance or entity called spirit that moved through history. If Hegel is metaphysical, then Marx is metaphysical too Remember how I said all you're good for is giving long, detailed responses for nothing? Idealism isn't inherently metaphysical either, and if it is, so is materialism (AS THEY BOTH CONCERN THE SAME POINT, of which they DISAGREE over).

Links cannot differentiate metaphysical idealism vs. materialism, and (let's say historical) idealism vs. materialism. Hegel's idealism stemmed from what he posited as the relationship between ideas and the material, human consciousness and our social being. Hegel knew well of the existence of the material: And Marx knew well of the existence of ideas. The point of disagreement is their relationship. Any idiot knows this well. Marx's materialism and the idealism he specifically dealt with were not metaphysical. Marx didn't concern himself with metaphysics at all, except when he claimed that they were already dealt with. In Marx's criticism of Hegel, did he claim Hegel's idealism was already dealt with? No! So we must recognize there is a difference. Of course to Links, the mere complexity of Hegel demands accusations of "mysticism" or "metaphysics" or whatever he wants.

Links, why don't you get this through your fucking head: Hegel himself =/= Hegelianism. Of course, we've already been through that. If there's anything detrimental to this "learning environment" it's your fucking groundless sarcasm, like who the fuck are you? You don't have the higher ground here, you're losing the argument.


And can we have some moderation here to calm this child down? It's learning after all. Aren't some stricter rules for this sub-forum in place anyway?


Oh, I'm sure you're actually, genuinely concerned over the well-being of this thread as far as a learning environment goes. What a cowardly move.


So here you go. The method is exactly "the life process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of the 'Idea'", is transformed "into an independent subject" which is the "demiurgos of the real world" and vice versa, the real world becomes "only the external, phenomenal form of 'the Idea'". That's the Hegelian dialectic in a nutshell.


If Marx's dialectics is the opposite of Hegel's, that makes it all the more Hegelian. I'm actually kind of disgusted at such a simplistic interpretation. "Ha!" sneers Links, "Marx claimed his method was the OPPOSITE, meaning it had NOTHING TO DO with Hegel's method! The WHOLE of hegel's logical structures, foundations, were the OPPOSITE of Marx's!". This gravely represents an utmost lack of understanding as far as "being the opposite" even means in this situation. If Marx's method was the opposite of Hegel's, if Marx's method turned Hegel's method on its head, then guess what, ITS STILL HEGELIAN IN NATURE BY MERIT OF BEING THE VERY OPPOSITE. Cry me a river links, Marx still adhered to dialectics, so his notion of what opposite implies is not what you think. By merit of being the opposite: This implies that the STRUCTURE ITSELF remains, but it is INVERTED. If you turn a shirt inside out, the shirt remains. Again, you are arguing with a straw-man: No one argues that Marx and Hegel are the same, or that Marx did not disagree with Hegel. What is being argued is that fundamentally Hegelian forms of logic remained, whether they were turned on their ass or their head. Don't fucking lose an argument and then claim something I already addressed, but in a different way. We've been over this and you haven't confronted the fucking argument, not even a little bit. We've been over this before, and as far as I'm concerned, you were unable to address this fact. I can see you potentially saying things, trollishly:

"Yeah, right :laugh: Marxism is Hegelian, that's why Marx disagreed with Hegel and turned Hegel's method on its head. Lol Marx was a materialist and hegel was a super idealist, yeah sure it was still hegelian lol i am such a fucking obnoxious moron".

Yeah. Because I didn't already fucking destroy the basis that would allow you to say that. The only thing, after this thread, that persists, that would ALLOW you to type that is the presence of your fingers and your keyboard.


And you can be sure apart from all this kicking and screaming here - the Idea is most definitely a "final cause" .


I don't know where you're getting off linking Wikipedia; No one is denying it is a very, very common, stupid and lazy misconception of Hegel.

You're missing the point, Links. You're not seeing the bigger picture. All teleology for Hegel exists in retrospect. Hegel's alleged 'teleology" is retrospective, retrospective to whatever present circumstances one might find himself in. This is why there is a massive inconsistency if your argument:


then of course that the end point with human history is to consistently argue that whatever the state of affairs it is the product of the self-development of the Absolute. It is as it is, sorry folks.


How can Hegel be teleological, if whatever the state of affairs is is the product of the self development of the absolute (I thought your interpretation of the implications for this was hilariously stupid, literally that is the dumbest reading of Hegel I have ever come across, honestly Links how do you even get on?)?

Let's take a look at your ground-breaking "evidence":

The element in which the universal mind exists in art is intuition and imagery, in religion feeling and representative thinking, in philosophy pure freedom of thought. In world history this element is the actuality of mind in its whole compass of internality and externality alike. World history is a court of judgment because in its absolute universality, the particular – i.e. the Penates, civil society, and the national minds in their variegated actuality is present as only ideal, and the movement of mind in this element is the exhibition of that fact.


So yes, you linked a piece of text that was written by Hegel, but surprise surprise, you didn't understand it. This isn't a matter of varied interpretations. The erroneous nature of your understanding is evident from its sheer inconsistency. Hegel is making absolutely no implications as far as teleology goes, but yes it is explicitly idealist. But the core foundation, i.e. the notion of a universal mind itself is found at Marxism's core: Because the opposite of such a postulation (in which mind is simply a reflection of the processes of the real, and that the world spirit is the summation of the ideas of a specific social epoch) could not have been brought forth without the initial postulation to begin with. There is no Satanism without Christianity. Satanism, in its bare bones, is still inherently Christian. For Hegel the universal mind, rather than an entity which exists indiscriminate of reality, which has its own teleological ends, derived from the real itself, and exists relative to whichever historical phrase of development (with the WHOLE OF DEVELOPMENT existing in retrospect to the PRESENT). So rather than demonstrating that Hegel is teleological here: All you are doing is giving us an example of how Hegel explained, in short how things happened, and the nature of this happening. When Hegel sais the movement of mind in this element is the exhibition of that fact (fact being that their varied forms are only present to us as ideal) he is saying precisely the opposite, that the movement of the mind is the demonstration of this reality. I fail to see how this is teleological, or how it demonstrates that Hegel is purely teleological.

When hegel speaks of REASON and RATIONALITY links, he is already recognizing that these are BOUND to our perspective (as conscious humans)!

If it were truly teleological than this:

Further, world history is not the verdict of mere might, i.e. the abstract and non-rational inevitability of a blind destiny


would contradict this:

On the contrary, since mind is implicitly and actually reason, and reason is explicit to itself in mind as knowledge, world history is the necessary development, out of the concept of mind’s freedom alone, of the moments of reason and so of the self-consciousness and freedom of mind. This development is the interpretation and actualisation of the universal mind.

Hegel is saying out of the concept of the mind's freedom alone, in other words, our relative understanding of history.

I can't even articulate how § 343 can be read as teleological , so I need you to to elaborate.


But to Hegel, who accepts the doctrine of the Universal Mind, the plan of Providence is actually clear. Now, can a person seriously rage and despair over an assessment of a philosophy explicitly invoking Providence as teleological?


Well, if we presume that assessment is correct in the first place, if we presume that we have a "philosophy explicitly invoking providence" you're right. But this is WRONG to begin with. You have a tendency to PRESUME things as a given, give a few sentences of some nonsense, and then go off on that BASIS. But your very PRESUMPTIONS about it are wrong!

Your interpretation of Hegel here is just as valid, just as wrong and infantile as your previous interpretations of some of MY OWN posts (i.e. About the Christian logic of rebirth, for example, and how you created a hilariously idiotic dichotomy between that, and historical materialism). This is why none of this is necessarily shocking anymore. What are you basing this off? That Hegel mentioned providence, and gave heed to it. What you have to understand is that Hegel was born from the enlightenment: They weren't fucking idiots. Only the religious, who haven't dominated the realm of philosophy since medieval times, believe in such nonsense as ACTUAL divine providence. Its almost as though your atheist insecurities haven't been outgrown, even now.

Even if, in connection with history, they speak of Providence and the plan of Providence, and so express a faith in a higher power, their ideas remain empty because they expressly declare that for them the plan of Providence is inscrutable and incomprehensible.

You are twice wrong because firstly, Hegel does not posit that people can "accept" the doctrine of the universal mind. To Hegel, the universal mind exists indiscriminate of their awareness of it (which for him, was everyone before he postulated it). Honestly what a stupid fucking conclusion of you to come to. "He who accepts it, can see providence" as though it's some kind of fucking cheap religious scam. You don't know what you're talking about. Like this is EXACTLY how you would misread, and deliberately misinterpret my posts, too. I know your game, Links. Second:

The point Hegel is trying to make is not that X will allow you to see the plan of providence is clear. The point he is trying to make is that the notion of providence is especially wrong because it is beyond understanding, beyond decipherablity. Hegel doesn't concern, or care about actual providence, but the ideas that legitimize, actualize and shape the notion of providence: If providence is incomprehensible, the ideas are therefore empty. Why? Because for fuck's sake, the whole of Hegel's philosophy was dealing with understanding the development of ideas. This should be obvious to any child. It's not that you are sooo done with philosophy Links, it's that you don't know shit about philosophy and you don't know to comprehend ideas (rather than just text). "Lol, Hegel is ACTUALLY saying this! Omg!" you arrogantly, ignorantly sneer. Hegel, nor Marx, nor any continental thinker concerned themselves over such stupid specialties. The point was that many of these things, they deemed as a given (that it's obvious they wouldn't believe that kind of bullshit, based on the fact that their actual level of knowledge established through previous texts, it's a GIVEN). If we take bourgeois empiricist scum, conversely, like Karl Popper, or western academic 'intellectuals' (specifically in the Untied States) like Chomsky, it is entirely different. Everything, bit by bit, even if it is something any child knows, has to be established. They do not focus on logical foundations, because they possess no variation as far as their core foundational basis of thought goes: everything becomes a matter of specification and small, trivial bullshit.

This is what reactionaries, bourgeois rationalists like Links would have Marxism become a paradigm of.

[Rafiq]

Links presumes a plainly wrong understanding of Hegel's fundamental ideas, and then with that rotten bias, with that rotten predisposition, wrongfully presents his wrongful interpretation of Hegel: And how do we know it is wrong? Because it is inconsistent - it is not to applicable to Hegel as a whole, persistently. Hegel is either being a "defeatist" who claims "that's it, sorry folks!" as far as whatever state of being we are in, or is claiming history is inevitably leading up to a final stage.

Even though:
There can be nothing outside of the constrains of the "relative" stage you are in. Marx would claim that right now is the most 'advanced' or developed history has ever been. That does not mean it is subject to change, or that "this is it, sorry folks". Do you ACTUALLY believe what you're saying?


And I have already demonstrated the second postulation to have been false, several, several times. So what are you left with? I don't know, your blind hatred of philosophy? Your desperate attempts to retain the structures of hegemonic ideology and "empiricism"? Who knows. It isn't doing you shit, though.

[Thirsty Crow]

Just two brief remarks:


Hegel doesn't concern, or care about actual providence

He does:


Equally unsatisfactory is the merely abstract, undefined belief in a Providence, when that belief is not brought to bear upon the details of the process which it conducts. On the contrary our earnest endeavour must be directed to the recognition of the ways of Providence, the means it uses, and the historical phenomena in which it manifests itself


About Reason


But Divine Wisdom, i.e. Reason., is one and the same in the great as in the little; and we must not imagine God to be too weak to exercise his wisdom on the grand scale. Our intellectual striving aims at realising the conviction that what was intended by eternal wisdom, is actually accomplished in the domain of existent, active Spirit, as well as in that of mere Nature.

Seems like Reason is synonymous with Divine Wisdom. Or maybe it's all a conspiracy and an elaborate play of codewords. This also quite neatly sums up the problem of Telos - eternal wisdom realizes its intention.

Both quotes are from the Lectures on Philosophy of History https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hi/history3.htm#III

Why this brief remark? Because what you're saying is obviously false (the identifiable, specific claim about Hegel and Providence) and 'cause I have precious little time to deal with the entire thing since I have stuff to do. But I urge others not to trust me since I'm a detestable coward :lol:

[Rafiq]

He does

Equally unsatisfactory is the merely abstract, undefined belief in a Providence, when that belief is not brought to bear upon the details of the process which it conducts. On the contrary our earnest endeavour must be directed to the recognition of the ways of Providence, the means it uses, and the historical phenomena in which it manifests itself


Again, Hegel is attacking the notion of "providence" which is nothing short of an empty, lazy explanation. The point Hegel is making is not that providence is an explanation for anything, (In other words, Hegel wasn't INTRUDING or bringing forth providence in a sea of atheism, Hegel WASN'T AN ATHEIST). Since Hegel believed in a god (which is partially why he is an Idealist to begin with), he believed that EVERYTHING was providence anyway (which is why he didn't concern himself with it, because providence is synonymous with whatever we want it to be, as far as what he calls history!), but remember, Hegel said:

Further, world history is not the verdict of mere might, i.e. the abstract and non-rational inevitability of a blind destiny


Hegel didn't care about the notion of providence, or whether it existed or not. Hegel was a theist, and was not positing a materialist explanation for history, but he wasn't REINFORCING prevailing religious ideas about providence or a god: On the contrary, Hegel was attacking other theists for proclaiming that providence (In other words, the process of historical development, which for Hegel was the same thing) was indecipherable, and incomprehensible. For Hegel, there is no DESTINY: Inevitability exists ONLY in retrospect. For Hegel, the development of history only becomes "providence" AFTER it has happened, i.e. that doesn't mean it couldn't have happened ANOTHER way! That's Hegel at his core. A Hegelian reading of the October revolution, for example, would be that ONLY AFTER Stalin took power was his power historically inevitable, it exists in RETROSPECT.

All the machinations of history, all the specifialities in their infinite complexity for Hegel was "providence" (because he was a theist!), but for him that does not mean it was inevitable, or, as he claims: irrationally blind. The whole point of this, the whole POINT of what Hegel is trying to say is closer to ATTACKING teleology outright.


About Reason

Seems like Reason is synonymous with Divine Wisdom.


So what are the fundamental implications here? No one is claiming that Hegel wasn't a theist. It would be just as comparable for Kepler to have, while explaining the laws of planetary motion, claimed god was responsible.


Why this brief remark? Because what you're saying is obviously false (the identifiable, specific claim about Hegel and Providence

No, Hegel didn't give a shit about providence itself. What he was concerned with were common misconceptions, i.e. substituting a vague notion of providence with a real understanding of historical development. We could imagine someone like Giordano Bruno claim "Let us not think god is not vast enough to create an almost infinitely vast universe" when attacking his opponents, in which the prevalent belief was geocentricism. Saying that "Ha! Look, this guy is arguing for a god!" NO, this misses the point, and context. The point is that the geocentricism is wrong - how he presents this idea must be relative to his time, or his opponents, or the intellectual enviroment he is emerging from.

Similarly, the point of hegel wasn't to argue that providence is real. That doesn't have anything to do with shit. hegel didn't care about the notion of providence. What he cared about was dispelling the notion that history is incomprehensible, a paradigm of development which is unsolvable. I think you are detestable and dishonest, Links, but I don't think that's the most prevalent feature in your posts. Above all, what I know is that you don't know shit about Hegel. Dishonesty comes secondly, more shit to sprinkle on some already rotten food.

[Red Star Rising]

To be honest, I cannot really say much about the LTV at present, since I haven't reached that part in Capital yet. But I will comment on the rest of your post, in that I think you have a wrongheaded notion of what materialism is. Materialism does indeed emphasize that the material world is objective and exists independently of our own thought, but it does not follow that thoughts are suddenly not material or real. According to your own logic, feelings wouldn't be real, neither would labor. A commodity is embodied labor in a congealed form, but we only see the finished product and not necessarily the labor that went into it.

Aren't you clumping human labour power and congealed human labour together there? Human labour power is immaterial, congealed human labour is not I thought....objective, but immaterial.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Human labour power is immaterial, congealed human labour is not I thought....objective, but immaterial.

What are you even saying here? That congealed human labour is not immaterial (but objective?) or that congealed human labour is not objective but immaterial?

Either way, it's wrong. Human labour power is material (skills stored in brain and muscle, brain nd muscle executing this). Congealed human labour is only immaterial if you think the things they're congealed in are made out of thin air and wishes.

More importantly, the LTV is by definition material. This game of breaking up the components of it into material and immaterial /ideal makes little sense.

[Rafiq]

The dumbest thing to come out of this thread: The dichotomy between Marx and Hegel is now between Material and immaterial. This is a straw man created by MEGA first: That what distinguishes Hegel is the "immaterial". Hegelian Idealism can still work if we posit that everything is physical, matter.

Frankly if you don't know WHY you oppose Hegel, or if you oppose him for the wrong reasons, you are not a Marxist.

[blake 3:17]

I'm giving Rafiq an infraction for flaming in this thread.

While the discussion has become a rather odd and aggressive discussion about Hegel and Marx, Hegelian Marxism is a distinctly 20th phenomenon and unfortunately hasn't been discussed much here.

I did see a terrible but enjoyable from the film from the 60s last night that seemed to be the fulfillment of some kind of Marcusean idea. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061748/

The debate between Marcuse and Adorno on the student movement is very very interesting.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

The dumbest thing to come out of this thread: The dichotomy between Marx and Hegel is now between Material and immaterial. This is a straw man created by MEGA first: That what distinguishes Hegel is the "immaterial". Hegelian Idealism can still work if we posit that everything is physical, matter.

Frankly if you don't know WHY you oppose Hegel, or if you oppose him for the wrong reasons, you are not a Marxist.
You are bringing a physicalist element to your conception of materialism, which tends to concern itself only with tangible physical matter. My conception has nothing to do with yours, so your invented dichotomy between "material and immaterial" is itself a strawman. Furthermore, your conception would frame Marx himself as an idealist, as can be seen from this passage in the 1844 Manuscripts:
If man’s feelings, passions, etc., are not merely anthropological phenomena in the (narrower) sense, but truly ontological [41] affirmations of being (of nature), and if they are only really affirmed because their object exists for them as a sensual object, then it is clear that:

1. They have by no means merely one mode of affirmation, but rather that the distinct character of their existence, of their life, is constituted by the distinct mode of their affirmation. In what manner the object exists for them, is the characteristic mode of their gratification.

2. Wherever the sensuous affirmation is the direct annulment of the object in its independent form (as in eating, drinking, working up of the object, etc.), this is the affirmation of the object.

3. Insofar as man, and hence also his feeling, etc., is human, the affirmation of the object by another is likewise his own gratification.

4. Only through developed industry – i.e., through the medium of private property – does the ontological essence of human passion come into being, in its totality as well as in its humanity; the science of man is therefore itself a product of man’s own practical activity.

5. The meaning of private property – apart from its estrangement – is the existence of essential objects for man, both as objects of enjoyment and as objects of activity.
By understanding human emotions as ontological, Marx does not at all cast them into the Rafiquesque pit of the "immaterial". He recognizes their lack of "sensuous" appearance, but this does not mean they aren't material, or real. Number 2 illustrates his position very clearly.

Lastly, I do not oppose Hegel in the least. He is a crucial thinker to understand if one wishes to understand Marx's works, considering that Marx never published his own "Science of Logic". But the philosophical base of the two thinkers are worlds apart despite these similarities. And similarities alone do not make one thinker an "offshoot" of the other.

[Rafiq]

By understanding human emotions as ontological, Marx does not at all cast them into the Rafiquesque pit of the "immaterial". He recognizes their lack of "sensuous" appearance, but this does not mean they aren't material, or real. Number 2 illustrates his position very clearly.


MEGA, I have never claimed that anything was "immaterial". If you look closely, you will see that I abstained from the argument between you and Red Star Rising concerning whether the LTV concerns the domain of the immaterial. Because I regard everything, including ideas, to be physical, or to have derived from the physical, and because I have a very strong reputation of defending and upholding materialism, I think it is beyond erroneous to categorize such an assessment as "Rafiquesque".

I have adamantly opposed all forms of spiritualism: And at that, despite the fact that the very argument itself might divert attention from this fact - I am a Marxist, which means I wholly agree with Marx's criticism of Hegel, and the differences between Marx's materialism and Hegel's idealism. To add, I also have always regarded the various idealist trends, whether they be 'Heglian' in character or empiricist, among Marxists to be condemnable.

The argument, however, was not about whether Marx retained Hegel's idealism, or whether Marx didn't believe things were material. The argument concerned the fact that:

Idealists can recognize that everything is material, too. The opposition between Idealism and Materialism is not metaphysical, rather it is about the nature of the relationship between consciousness, and the world from which it is derived (to be very simplistic). This does not mean I believe certain things are not "real", or that certain things cannot be rationally traced to real physical processes. It simply means that dichotomy between Idealism and Materialism on these lines reflects a lack of understanding of either of them.

and

Whether fundamentally Hegelian thought-structures, logical presumptions persist in Marxism, not whether Hegel's idealism persists (though, many Marxists do fall into this trap of adhering to Hegel's idealism outright i.e. "serving history" or "fulfilling a historical process" or "All events in history were leading up to Communism from their very inception", though this is a grave misinterpretation).

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

MEGA, I have never claimed that anything was "immaterial". If you look closely, you will see that I abstained from the argument between you and Red Star Rising concerning whether the LTV concerns the domain of the immaterial. Because I regard everything, including ideas, to be physical, or to have derived from the physical, and because I have a very strong reputation of defending and upholding materialism, I think it is beyond erroneous to categorize such an assessment as "Rafiquesque".
You were positing that the distinction that I created between Marx and Hegel is the material and the “immaterial”, which was incorrect. Then, you proceeded to mention Hegelian idealism in the very next sentence, implying that I was conflating the two. If I mistook your criteria for what constitutes “material”, then I apologize. But it’s your fault for not elaborating on concepts that I have been pushing you to explain from the very beginning.

Next, it is erroneous to simply say that ideas are “physical, or derived from the physical”. Using this logic, ideas are either tangible objects or their content are merely brain chemicals; this is what I was talking about when I said that your conception of materialism is physicalist. For Marx, it is the interaction between object and idea that that confirms their material nature of both, albeit in much different forms. The idea cannot exist without its interaction with the material world. And while the material world can exist without the idea, its existence means little without its use, or consumption.


I have adamantly opposed all forms of spiritualism…among Marxists to be condemnable.
I don’t particularly care if you consider yourself to be a Marxist or not. Stay on topic for once.


The argument, however, was not about whether Marx retained Hegel's idealism, or whether Marx didn't believe things were material. The argument concerned the fact that:

…It simply means that dichotomy between Idealism and Materialism on these lines reflects a lack of understanding of either of them.

and

Whether fundamentally Hegelian thought-structures, logical presumptions persist in Marxism, not whether Hegel's idealism persists….
Wrong, Rafiq. Initially, the argument was solely based on the latter, whether Marxism was Hegelian in nature, and the root of your position was whether “Hegelian logic structures” existed in Marx (which is undoubtedly true). You only brought the first argument out of spite in an attempt to paint me as some sort of crypto-liberal. I must say that it’s refreshing to have a debate with you in which you’re not vomit-posting a thread I’m involved in.

[Rafiq]

Ideas are a result of physical, chemical processes in the brain. They also reflect real social realities. That does not mean they are simple, or that it is always the same (chemical process for every brain. The idea itself is not physical, but is a result of physical processes.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Ideas are a result of physical, chemical processes in the brain. They also reflect real social realities. That does not mean they are simple, or that it is always the same (chemical process for every brain. The idea itself is not physical, but is a result of physical processes.
This notion of yours seems like a basic truism for Marxists. But a closer examination is order here.

Let's tackle the first sentence for now. The word "result" typically implies a static object produced by processes that simple and easy to understand. For instance, chocolate milk is the result of pouring cocoa mix into regular milk. Or, to take this further, leaving a drink in an active refrigerator will make it cold. For everyday life, this "common sense" gets us through the day and can serve us well. This is one area of life where empiricism's merits cannot be denied. But this common sense has a limit: It cannot explain the interactivity that takes place between subject and object.

Let's look at the cocoa example. When cocoa is poured into milk, it is not just the cocoa that is negated, but the milk as well. But this negation is contradictory, because while chocolate milk is a completely new quality, the essential elements of the two previous ingredients are preserved in a new form. This is a very basic sketch of the transformation from quantity into quality, but a similar process occurs between ideas and the brain. Or, as Engels put it in his notes on dialectics:

Mechanical motion. Among natural scientists motion is always as a matter of course taken to mean mechanical motion, change of place. This has been handed down from the pre-chemical eighteenth century and makes a clear conception of the processes much more difficult. Motion, as applied to matter, is change in general. From the same misunderstanding is derived also the craze to reduce everything to mechanical motion – even Grove is

“strongly inclined to believe that the other affections of matter ... are, and will ultimately be resolved into, modes of motion,” p. 16

which obliterates the specific character of the other forms of motion. This is not to say that each of the higher forms of motion is not always necessarily connected with some real mechanical (external or molecular) motion, just as the higher forms of motion simultaneously also produce other forms, and just as chemical action is not possible without change of temperature and electric changes, organic life without mechanical, molecular, chemical, thermal, electric, etc., changes. But the presence of these subsidiary forms does not exhaust the essence of the main form in each case. One day we shall certainly “reduce” thought experimentally to molecular and chemical motions in the brain; but does that exhaust the essence of thought?
In other words, simply describing ideas as a "result" of physical processes completely misses their specific properties of autonomy (within certain limits) in its interaction with its base, the mind (which should not necessarily be reduced to its material substrate, the brain).

Your conception of materialism completely misses all of this. That you recognize the "non-material" nature of ideas is besides the point. By saying ideas are a result of physical processes, you are actually reducing them to physical processes. And this is what makes your materialism physicalist as opposed to dialectical.

[Rafiq]

Are ideas not, in the end, a result of physical processes in the brain? How can this simple statement

Ideas are a result of physical, chemical processes in the brain. They also reflect real social realities. That does not mean they are simple, or that it is always the same (chemical process for every brain. The idea itself is not physical, but is a result of physical processes.


Lead you to all of these obscene accusations? What are you even talking about, MEGAMANTROTSKY? You're literally, actually (I'm not even just saying this) arguing with a straw man. No one claims that everything is reduced to "mechanical motion". If ideas, and consciousness itself, do not result from physical processes in the brain, then we enter the domain of the spiritual. You claim


By saying ideas are a result of physical processes, you are actually reducing them to physical processes.

How do you even come to that conclusion? You're literally just arguing to get your last word in now. You're forming all of these simplistic arguments that everyone who has ever bothered with Marxism knows, in order to try and demonstrate your level of knowledge. Good job, everyone else possesses the same level of knowledge. We all know. Please explain how I am "reducing them to physical processes" by claiming they are a result of physical processes (as in, denying that ideas can have real effects on the physical itself).

Please tell me where you are finding all of this information in pertinence to what I believe, I would very much like to know because I can't find any of it myself.

I understand that you were shown to be completely wrong throughout the entirety of this thread, MEGAMANTROTSKY, and I understand that you might try and make yourself feel better by creating a straw-man argument and proceeding to discredit your straw man. You shouldn't guise your shortcomings like this, you should recognize them, and improve yourself.

(I hope people understand why I flame. I hope people understand how frustrating this is for me, I literally have to deal with this NONSENSE! MEGAMAN actually believes he's teaching me something, like he's schooling me. He literally believes we are having a discussion about mechanical vs dialectical materialism by which I assume the role of defending mechanical materialism, and he proceeds to tell me how this is not Marxist. This is literally what he is thinking as he types on his keyboard.)

[Hit The North]

Let's look at the cocoa example. When cocoa is poured into milk, it is not just the cocoa that is negated, but the milk as well. But this negation is contradictory, because while chocolate milk is a completely new quality, the essential elements of the two previous ingredients are preserved in a new form. This is a very basic sketch of the transformation from quantity into quality, but a similar process occurs between ideas and the brain.


This is a very poor example. Neither the cocoa or the milk is negated. On the contrary, they maintain themselves in combination with each other. Chocolate milk doesn't have a new quality, it is merely a combination of the properties of both chocolate and milk. We don't need dialectics in order to explain food recipes.

[blake 3:17]

Just found the Adorno-Marcuse exchange online. Haven't had a chance to review it, but did find it very interesting when I did. Marcuse was extremely enthusiastic about the student movement and New Left, while Adorno had a pessimistic view seeing it as as kind of left fascism. There's some truth to both positions.

https://hutnyk.wordpress.com/2013/06/12/adorno-marcuse-correspondence-on-the-student-left-dialectics-left-fascism-institute-distortions-travel-recuperation-and-more/

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

This is a very poor example. Neither the cocoa or the milk is negated. On the contrary, they maintain themselves in combination with each other. Chocolate milk doesn't have a new quality, it is merely a combination of the properties of both chocolate and milk. We don't need dialectics in order to explain food recipes.
If you're going to attack my position, please don't distort it. I never said that the milk and the cocoa are negated, full stop. I took care to mention that this "negation" has a contradictory and twofold nature. This is what Hegel called "aufheben", or "sublation" in English. Merriam-Webster's definition is pretty good though I would quibble with the word "partial" and instead use "essential:

"To negate or eliminate (as an element in a dialectic process) but preserve as a partial element in a synthesis."

Practically, this means that the cocoa's powdery substance is dissolved when it mixes with the milk, but its flavor is preserved. Likewise with the milk, it ceases to be ordinary, but instead a new quality of milk that doesn't lose its essential quality as milk. At the very least, I can still taste it, even though it tastes different than the original skim. In this context I don't understand how chocolate milk cannot be considered a newer quality than skim milk; you seem to be implying that two edible and compatible substances do not undergo any chemical change after their "combination", instead only existing side by side.

Finally, I wasn't trying to use dialectical logic to tap into the secrets of fine cooking. That's a strawman of your own invention. I was demonstrating that Rafiq's conception of materialism is wrongheaded and has more in common with empiricism than with Marxism. The milk was merely an example.

[Rafiq]

You didn't demonstrate anything. You created a straw man out of nothing. There was nothing in my post that could ever imply your accusations to be true. MEGA literally just made things up and argued with them to feel confident. Look at the thread everyone. Why is he allowed to troll like this, but I am penalized for reacting to his trolling?

Your conception of dialectics is rather trivializing, unoriginal and worthless. You don't understand dialectics at all: the fact that you would use something like chocolate milk as an example is laughable. Dialectics is not something that ought to be superimposed upon nature. It is a means by which we understand history, and the struggle itself. Your dialectical wizardry is embarrassing at best. You're nothing but a troll, you're otherwise a bore. you have brought nothing original to the table anywhere, all you're good for is bastardizing and vulgarizing Marxism in a manner that has been consistent with all other Trotskyists. You make It seem like you're teaching all of us something: as it we haven't confronted those ideas years ago. This reflects not only a gross personal immaturity, but an immaturity in your politics. Don't you dare talk down to me, champ, I yawn at your desperate roars. You're so self righteous in your philistine unoriginalality, and cliche garbage, so confident like you're gifting us with such unheard of revelations. It's so cute. Your analogy doesn't even work anyway. Dialectics concerns real, identifiable processes of contradiction and struggle, not the pouring of cocoa at will.

As a matter of fact, it is YOUR notion of dialectics which is mechanical: dialectics for Trotskyists Is JUST THAT, a matter of sheer will, to fulfill contradictions as we please. You have two objects, milk and cocoa and you mix them and presto! "Dialectics" at work!. This is exactly what engels called superimposing dialectics on nature. Nay mind deep rooted, eternal processes of struggle, it's just a matter of making chocolate milk.

I lik how you actually went down that road to begin with. As if I don't fucking know what dialectics is. Fuck! Now that MEGAMAN has taught me, I can be on the road to being a Trot.. or a "Marxist" in no time! I've dedicated most if my life to Marxism for more than a few years now, but in MEGA's head, I don't understand dialectics. He is literally talking to someone who just got done schooling him in Hegel and arguing with everyone about Hegel. Literally he is talking to someone who knows MORE about dialectics than he ever will (since I expect his "Marxist" journey will end soon). You haven't even ever read Hegel, MEGAMAN. Not once. You're going to try and explain dialectics to... ME???(!) Holy fuck I'm going to vomit. Aufheben applied to chocolate milk, everyone. This is a gross misinterpretation even by its own merits of logic. Marxism being Hegelian is a perfect example of aufheben. Lenin breaking with Kautsky but carrying on the legacy he left behind is one. If you want, Mao destroying national relics and vestiges of culture and yet actually ending up the true heirs of Chinese civilization and history (from our existing, present perspective) is a perfect example. You don't know what it means beyond a stupid dictionary definition. Like, you don't KNOW what it means, you don't UNDERSTAND it's appropriate application.

MEGAMAN claims that I am "REDUCING" ideas to the physical, while himself shamelessly reducing something as complicated as the dialectic to the mixture of dietary ingredients at will. Who is reducing what, now?

[Rafiq]

First I am characterizing Marxism as idealist, and now I am too mechanical in my materialism (a groundless, baseless accusations. Sure in the earlier-mid part of 2012 this was somewhat true, I don't deny that. But he knows better, I also used to identify with Bordiga).

MEGAMILK can't even hide his political immaturity. Just look at his username.

There is a reason he obsessively keeps references me in his signature: I've destroyed him in every confrontation we've ever had. Literally, there is no debate about this. He has always been completely, inarguably and utterly beaten and dragged through the dirt like it's nothing. He expresses his frustration by keeping my name in his signature, to remind himself, to comfort himself that big bad Rafiq is just a crazy madman who is dum and stoopid who doesn't knows anything unlike the beacon of honesty and truth: Five Year Plan, who was so honest that he lied about being Lucretia, who got banned for apologizing for George Zimmerman. Want to know MEGA's character, everyone? Look no further than this fact. It's easy to separate the dishonest and the true here.

[Sewer Socialist]

...This is a really intense discussion I'm interrupting, but what should I read by/about Hegel? I haven't read any political writing that predates Bakunin/Marx/Stirner/Proudhon.

Would it be more useful to actually read Capital (at least before I try to tackle Hegel)? I have a good idea of what Capital is about and the major concepts in it, but never actually read it.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

First I am characterizing Marxism as idealist, and now I am too mechanical in my materialism (a groundless, baseless accusations. Sure in the earlier-mid part of 2012 this was somewhat true, I don't deny that. But he knows better, I also used to identify with Bordiga).

MEGAMILK can't even hide his political immaturity. Just look at his username.

There is a reason he obsessively keeps references me in his signature: I've destroyed him in every confrontation we've ever had. Literally, there is no debate about this. He has always been completely, inarguably and utterly beaten and dragged through the dirt like it's nothing. He expresses his frustration by keeping my name in his signature, to remind himself, to comfort himself that big bad Rafiq is just a crazy madman who is dum and stoopid who doesn't knows anything unlike the beacon of honesty and truth: Five Year Plan, who was so honest that he lied about being Lucretia, who got banned for apologizing for George Zimmerman. Want to know MEGA's character, everyone? Look no further than this fact. It's easy to separate the dishonest and the true here.
I'd appreciate it if you would stop projecting and flaming and start debating, Rafiq. That evidently hasn't changed in the last two years.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

...This is a really intense discussion I'm interrupting, but what should I read by/about Hegel? I haven't read any political writing that predates Bakunin/Marx/Stirner/Proudhon.

Would it be more useful to actually read Capital (at least before I try to tackle Hegel)? I have a good idea of what Capital is about and the major concepts in it, but never actually read it.
You could certainly try reading Capital first, but if you're anything like me, you might have a very hard time coming to grips with how Marx explains his concepts (I still have a hard time). What worked for me is giving the first volume of Hegel's Science of Logic a thorough read: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hlbeing.htm#HL1_82a

Inside, you will encounter many of the same concepts that have been mentioned throughout this thread, and it may help you in understanding Capital if you have any trouble.

[Rafiq]

I'd appreciate it if you would stop projecting and flaming and start debating, Rafiq. That evidently hasn't changed in the last two years.

In other words, you are unable to address the points brought forth.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

In other words, you are unable to address the points brought forth.

Rafiq, I told you before that I will not engage you if you continue to flame me. If you're going to keep pulling this crap, this is where our discussion ends.

[Rafiq]

Rafiq, I told you before that I will not engage you if you continue to flame me. If you're going to keep pulling this crap, this is where our discussion ends.

I'm not flaming you here (though, apparently I was earlier in the thread). I'm flaming your 'ideas". Saying that your notion of dialectics is worthless, is different than saying you yourself are worthless. That isn't "flaming". For someone so committed to avoid personal attacks in discussions (to the point where you entirely abdict from the discussion itself - funny, seeing that you were engaging in discussion in this thread up until this point even at the times where I was actually flaming you), it is rather odd that every post you make consists of a personal attack against me. And I'm talking about your signature.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Just so that this thread will not go off topic, I'm placing this post in spoiler tags. As to whether Rafiq's remarks about me, or my criticisms of his ideas, are accurate, I leave judgment to those who have followed this thread.

I'm not flaming you here (though, apparently I was earlier in the thread). I'm flaming your 'ideas". Saying that your notion of dialectics is worthless, is different than saying you yourself are worthless. That isn't "flaming". For someone so committed to avoid personal attacks in discussions (to the point where you entirely abdict from the discussion itself - funny, seeing that you were engaging in discussion in this thread up until this point even at the times where I was actually flaming you), it is rather odd that every post you make consists of a personal attack against me. And I'm talking about your signature.
Rafiq, the problem is that most of your posts to me are little more than flames (leaving aside your personal flame in #67, after you were infracted for flaming). If you had actually brought any objections of substance, I would have responded to them. But when I have to comb paragraphs upon paragraphs of unsupported statements of how me and my ideas are worthless, I realize that I'm wasting my time. Additionally, your distinction between flaming me or my ideas is useless according to RevLeft's rules:

Excessive flaming is not permitted on RevLeft. While we understand that many issues discussed here are controversial and emotionally charged, we also understand that emotional responses can get out of hand. This means that posts containing little but personal insults, name-calling and/or threats are not permitted.

Repeated flaming in posts containing nothing of substance except flames will result in warning points, and incorrigible offenders may be banned. In some cases threads which degenerate into "flame wars" will be locked with the participants prohibited from reviving them in any form.
This is what you've been "apparently" doing throughout the majority of this thread, not only to me but to LR and anyone else who disagrees with you. I'm surprised that you are always able to get away with it.

There are no personal insults against you in my signature. I am not even quoting you. You are referenced in another thread where Five Year Plan is not happy to encounter you again; I'll leave it to the posters of this forum to google the context of that remark for themselves. Finally, I cannot seem to find any personal attacks in my posts here, aside from references to how consistently outrageous your posting behavior is.

Once again, I leave it to those who have followed this thread so far to judge whether Rafiq's remarks about me, or my criticisms of his ideas, are accurate.

[Rafiq]

All you're doing is cowardly guising your inability to confront my actual points, or my criticism of your ideas, in your disapproval of my posting style.

Because I am "flaming"(I haven't flamed once since I got infracted), this alone discredits the actual substance of my posts (don't you dare act like it's just all "flaming", or that most of it is). why? Because MEGAMAN sais so.

We know you are dishonest just by your wording alone. "MY criticism of his IDEAS" vs "HIS remarks about ME". Ha! Yeah, try again. Hes trying to paint himself as the only one offering any arguments, while I'm just "making remarks about him". This evidently isn't the case. Why was I ever making remarks about him? For the fuck of it? No! It was WHILE I was demonstrating the utter ridiculousness of his ideas, or his arguments! But of course, this becomes indecipherable MEGAMAN as soon his arguments feelings get hurt. As soon as he hears the word "nonsense" the whole post gets sucked into a black vortex, whereby nothing remains but that which he deems "flaming".

How do we know he isn't telling the truth? Because earlier in the thread, I was actually flaming him, but this didn't seem to stop him from addressing my points about Hegel. This "revelation" of his must have been rather new, conveniently at a time when he is faced with an argumentative deadlock (I can't even conceptualize how you would burrow your way out of this one like you tried to in the feminism thread, honestly).

Though he's right, let's let others decide. Let's hear what others think about how a phrase that expresses drudgery with every encounter of me isnt a personal attack. Please.

No, no, MEGA's crowd didn't personally attack me. 870 never flamed, or personally attacked me (funny, because every encounter with him brought a personal attack). Neither did FYP. Why did you not complain then, if you're so honest? (You WERE part of those discussions).