Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Did Marx Really Stand "Hegel On His Head"?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-10 04:27 PM
Original message
Did Marx Really Stand "Hegel On His Head"?
And I mean figuratively.


What is the great mover of history, events or ideas?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
FarCenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-10 04:42 PM
Response to Original message
1. The second law of thermodynamics
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pscot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-10 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
2. In a corner
Made him stay there too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-10 05:14 PM
Response to Original message
3. the better to snorkel him
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-10 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I'm Serious
Does my material condition affect my thinking or does my thinking affect my material condition. To me the answer is obvious; my material condition affects my thinking because the former is much less mutable
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-10 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. When you're on your head your material condition is that your blood is rushing to your brain.
Thus affecting your thinking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nealmhughes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-10 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
5. Not really. Marx took Hegel's dialectic concept and moved it from ideas to materialism.
Karl and Fred were, as Hobsbawm would say, "Vulgar Marxists." They saw no nuance and everything was based on two forces only colliding to form the new synthesis which becomes the next thesis for the antithesis to collide. In other words, neither thinker (Marx or Hegel) had much room for multiple forces reacting at varying vectors. Whew, I knew that historiography seminar would come in handy some day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-10 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Karl was not a vulgar Marxist because he denied being a Marxist.
And he considered a great many influences in his history, although he could get a bit rigid in his philosophy.

What I say about him was that he was a great diagnostician but a lousy clinician of society.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-10 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. What's Ironic Is That Another Great Philosopher Christ Would Deny Being A Christian
I actually think he's the Son Of God but I don't want to hijack this discussion.

To be being a Christian and a Marxist or a small c communist are not mutually exclusive . My material condition has pushed my thinking far to the left but I don't know if I'm in the communist camp yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-10 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. I Loved Marx As A Polemicist
As a polemic there is little better reading than "The Communist Manifesto."

"All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses, his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind."

That's agreat description of 2010 America; at least for some of us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-10 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nealmhughes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-10 07:48 PM
Response to Original message
11. What is the great mover of history? People.
It seems to be that camps which always remind me of the 3 Stooges short "Nature! No! Nuture!"

Ideas catch hold or they don't. People move history. Great Men are convenient shorthand for the group of people who supported the said "Great Man." Marx, for example, is undeniably a Great Man, he must be, people read him and cite him (often out of context) all the time. Reagan was a Great Man, even though he did nothing original and was senile during his entire presidency. We humans feel a need to connect with someone "Great" on the left, the middle, the right, in matters of religion, economics, politics, whatever, we feel this need.

Marx tried to do away with the Great Man and the State driven concepts of rigorous academic Germanic historicism, that is to say von Ranke style, prior to von Ranke himself. He substituted the Class Conflict as driver. Now, that is great if there are only rigid classes, but in reality there are not. Not every aristocrat/capitalist is an enemy of the worker, for example.

History needs no help in occurring, it simply will, without any intervention! Remember, history is a genre of literature that treats past events using largely primary sources in an attempt to provide an analysis for the happening of past events. By the way, history is really philosophy, but historians do not do well in Greek, and students are afraid of philosophy, so we trick them by adding in dates and those silly "facts" that are so inconvenient to make our well ordered machine (rigorous philosophy) run smoothly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-10 09:38 PM
Response to Original message
12. A complex mix of ideas, technology, and economics, none of which is uniquely primary.
Edited on Fri Apr-09-10 09:39 PM by Odin2005
I reject any interpretation of history that reduces history to "just" technology and material culture or "just" ideas and beliefs.

And Hegel and anything based on Hegel is garbage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 04:51 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC