Basically in Hegel's work, especially in his Phenomenology of Spirit, and in Freud's work, like Totem and Taboo, Future of an Illusion, Civilization and Its Discontents, etc., they both build fairly detailed, theoretical accounts of the link(s) between how society is structured in comparison to thought. And there is that comparison with respect to the life of an individual that can be applied to a collective. With the major difference probably being that Freud is focused on the unconscious and neurosis and Hegel on philosophy/science (which compliment each other pretty well when put together). And, also, Freud even in his Group Psychology goes to contrast the individual with the group. And I think I watched a Zizek video where he explains the limits of Hegel, through certain concepts (some linked to Freud like repetition), and I think he might of went on to show how it was only that Hegel didn't see these things insofar as he wasn't being Hegelian enough, i.e., Hegel missed what he provided (the theoretical framework for) being seen clearly. And that applies really to Marx and capital, also -- he might have missed what Marx did in Capital, but the very framework of Hegelian Logic, and his shadow over the intellectual culture at that time, was there.

For examples of what I mean: In Hegel it is clear in his Phenomenology even just with the use of the term geist to apply to both mind and spirit and as an individual and society, with the whole being really a description as an individual, dialectical going through philosophical thought, making progress, comparing to certain schools/times of philosophical thought, providing critiques, etc., and his political works (Philosophy of Right) merging law and society with morality and ethics, showing links and providing analysis of freedom and determinism, etc. And In Freud his Oedipus Complex/Myth, and showing link between religion, primitive culture and neurotic behaviors.

Now, I never really got where Marx (or Engels, I guess) provided something similar. However, I wasn't really looking for it either.

So, does Marx have something similar, even if it is just though a "materialist" conception? Or is it just not there.

To me, the understanding of how both unconscious and conscious thought functions in individuals and society, and how it plays into the way society is structured or functions based on how society is structured, i.e., either forcing actions, or enforcing reactions, to situations, is extremely important for the left.

I do notice a lot in Capital, from Marx, that gives clear critique of ideology, and even provide analysis that can apply to the psyche, e.g., alienation, objectification, fetishism of commodities/money, but a lot of that, I probably wouldn't have even got without already having known Hegel and philosophy, and the major concept of alienation comes from Hegel. And that (all together) really wasn't as detailed as what you would get from others.

So for a second question: if that is something really lacking in Marx, and Marx is also the main symbol of an intellectual for a lot of the left (or just thinkers who are Marxists or really aren't any better), is that a problem?

And for a third part: the same probably also applies to details about social contract theory and morality/ethics. Like he mentions things like base/superstructure, but there is there any analysis or adding to the works of those like Hobbes, Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, etc?