What Is the Difference between Hegel and Marx?

A. Blunden
{"title":"What Is the Difference between Hegel and Marx?","authors":"A. Blunden","doi":"10.1163/9789004470972_003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Here I have drawn some material from my recent “Hegel for Social Movements” to review the vexed question of the relation between Marx and Hegel. I base my observations on what Marx has written on various philosophical, methodological and political issues and not what he himself has said about his relation to Hegel, which are generally polemical and misleading. Nor shall I rely on what Engels has said in the course of popularising Marx’s ideas for 19th century socialists. The main difference between Hegel & Marx is the times they lived in The philosophical difference between Hegel and Marx is a topic which has been hotly disputed for over a century. The differences between the philosophical approaches of Hegel and Marx will be dealt with in detail later on, but the essential difference between Marx and Hegel is the times they lived in. Given the economic, social and cultural peculiarities of Germany in Hegel’s day there was some basis for Hegel to believe that it would be through philosophy that Germany could modernise itself. Today, this stands clearly exposed as an ‘idealist’ position ‒ to believe that an economic, social and cultural transformation could be achieved via a philosophical revolution, rather than the other way around. But this does not invalidate the choice Hegel made in his day. After Hegel’s death in 1831, his students did draw the revolutionary conclusions that were implicit in their teacher’s philosophy. Hegelianism spilt over the walls of the academy as his students popularised his teachings and translated them into the language of politics ‒ or more correctly, translated politics into the language of Hegelian philosophy. In 1841, the Prussian government moved to “expunge the dragon's seed of Hegelian pantheism” from the minds of Prussian youth. The newly-appointed Minister for Culture mobilized Friedrich Schelling (the last surviving representative of German Idealism, and now a conservative) to come to Berlin and do the job. His lecture in December 1841 was attended by Engels, Bakunin, Kierkegaard and notables from all over Europe but manifestly failed to quell the spread of radical ideas and revolutionary agitation which embraced Hegelian philosophy. It is a remarkable fact that almost all the revolutionaries of the 19th and 20th century were either students of Hegel, Hegelians of the second or third philosophical generation or influenced by other figures of German Philosophy of the time – Kant, Fichte and Schelling, but above all Hegel ‒ whether in the form of Marxism or other critical philosophical currents. So Hegel was not entirely mistaken in his belief in the political power of philosophy. By the time that Marx resigned the editorship of the Rheinische Zeitung in 1843, France had been rocked by a series of working class revolts and Paris was seething with revolutionary ferment, the English working class had constructed the first working class political party in history (the National Charter Association) and were challenging bourgeois rule in Britain, and an advanced industrial working class was emerging in Germany. It was now obvious that change would come to Europe through the political struggle of the industrial working class. Capitalist development was disrupting all the old relations and it was going to be the industrial working class who would lead the transformation. Furthermore, the leaders of the labour movement were not just demanding inclusion in or reform of the state, or even aiming to replace government with one of their own, but to smash the state. This was something unimaginable in Hegel’s day. * First published on the web in February 2020 and translated into Spanish, Portuguese and Italian.","PeriodicalId":320224,"journal":{"name":"Hegel, Marx and Vygotsky","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hegel, Marx and Vygotsky","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004470972_003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Here I have drawn some material from my recent “Hegel for Social Movements” to review the vexed question of the relation between Marx and Hegel. I base my observations on what Marx has written on various philosophical, methodological and political issues and not what he himself has said about his relation to Hegel, which are generally polemical and misleading. Nor shall I rely on what Engels has said in the course of popularising Marx’s ideas for 19th century socialists. The main difference between Hegel & Marx is the times they lived in The philosophical difference between Hegel and Marx is a topic which has been hotly disputed for over a century. The differences between the philosophical approaches of Hegel and Marx will be dealt with in detail later on, but the essential difference between Marx and Hegel is the times they lived in. Given the economic, social and cultural peculiarities of Germany in Hegel’s day there was some basis for Hegel to believe that it would be through philosophy that Germany could modernise itself. Today, this stands clearly exposed as an ‘idealist’ position ‒ to believe that an economic, social and cultural transformation could be achieved via a philosophical revolution, rather than the other way around. But this does not invalidate the choice Hegel made in his day. After Hegel’s death in 1831, his students did draw the revolutionary conclusions that were implicit in their teacher’s philosophy. Hegelianism spilt over the walls of the academy as his students popularised his teachings and translated them into the language of politics ‒ or more correctly, translated politics into the language of Hegelian philosophy. In 1841, the Prussian government moved to “expunge the dragon's seed of Hegelian pantheism” from the minds of Prussian youth. The newly-appointed Minister for Culture mobilized Friedrich Schelling (the last surviving representative of German Idealism, and now a conservative) to come to Berlin and do the job. His lecture in December 1841 was attended by Engels, Bakunin, Kierkegaard and notables from all over Europe but manifestly failed to quell the spread of radical ideas and revolutionary agitation which embraced Hegelian philosophy. It is a remarkable fact that almost all the revolutionaries of the 19th and 20th century were either students of Hegel, Hegelians of the second or third philosophical generation or influenced by other figures of German Philosophy of the time – Kant, Fichte and Schelling, but above all Hegel ‒ whether in the form of Marxism or other critical philosophical currents. So Hegel was not entirely mistaken in his belief in the political power of philosophy. By the time that Marx resigned the editorship of the Rheinische Zeitung in 1843, France had been rocked by a series of working class revolts and Paris was seething with revolutionary ferment, the English working class had constructed the first working class political party in history (the National Charter Association) and were challenging bourgeois rule in Britain, and an advanced industrial working class was emerging in Germany. It was now obvious that change would come to Europe through the political struggle of the industrial working class. Capitalist development was disrupting all the old relations and it was going to be the industrial working class who would lead the transformation. Furthermore, the leaders of the labour movement were not just demanding inclusion in or reform of the state, or even aiming to replace government with one of their own, but to smash the state. This was something unimaginable in Hegel’s day. * First published on the web in February 2020 and translated into Spanish, Portuguese and Italian.
黑格尔与马克思的区别是什么?
在这里,我从我最近的《社会运动中的黑格尔》中摘录了一些材料来回顾马克思和黑格尔之间的关系这个棘手的问题。我的观察是基于马克思关于各种哲学、方法论和政治问题的著作,而不是他自己关于他与黑格尔关系的言论,后者通常是争论性的和误导性的。我也不会依赖恩格斯在为19世纪社会主义者普及马克思思想的过程中所说的话。黑格尔和马克思的主要区别在于他们所处的时代。黑格尔和马克思的哲学差异是一个争论了一个多世纪的话题。黑格尔和马克思在哲学方法上的差异将在后面详细讨论,但马克思和黑格尔之间的本质区别在于他们所生活的时代。考虑到黑格尔时代德国的经济、社会和文化特点,黑格尔有理由相信,通过哲学,德国可以实现自己的现代化。今天,这显然是一种“理想主义”立场——相信经济、社会和文化转型可以通过哲学革命来实现,而不是相反。但这并不能否定黑格尔在他那个时代所做的选择。黑格尔于1831年去世后,他的学生确实得出了隐含在他们老师哲学中的革命性结论。当他的学生普及他的学说并将其翻译成政治语言——或者更准确地说,将政治翻译成黑格尔哲学的语言时,黑格尔主义在学院的墙壁上蔓延开来。1841年,普鲁士政府采取行动,从普鲁士青年的思想中“清除黑格尔泛神论的龙种”。新任命的文化部长动员了弗里德里希·谢林(最后一位幸存的德国理想主义代表,现在是保守派)来柏林做这项工作。1841年12月,他的演讲吸引了恩格斯、巴枯宁、克尔凯郭尔和欧洲各地的名人,但显然未能平息激进思想的传播和拥护黑格尔哲学的革命风潮。值得注意的是,19世纪和20世纪几乎所有的革命者要么是黑格尔的学生,要么是第二代或第三代哲学的黑格尔派,要么是受当时德国哲学其他人物的影响——康德、费希特和谢林,但最重要的是黑格尔——无论是以马克思主义的形式还是以其他批判哲学流派的形式。因此,黑格尔对哲学的政治力量的信念并非完全错误。马克思于1843年辞去《莱茵报》编辑职务时,法国已经被一系列的工人阶级起义所震撼,巴黎弥漫着革命的骚动,英国工人阶级建立了历史上第一个工人阶级政党(全国宪章协会),并在英国挑战资产阶级的统治,德国也出现了先进的工业工人阶级。很明显,欧洲将通过工业工人阶级的政治斗争来实现变革。资本主义的发展破坏了所有旧的关系,而工业工人阶级将领导这场变革。此外,工人运动的领导人不仅要求加入或改革国家,甚至以自己的政府取代政府为目标,而且要粉碎国家。这在黑格尔的时代是不可想象的。* 2020年2月首次在网上发布,并被翻译成西班牙语、葡萄牙语和意大利语。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信