@Loosy said in #72:
> Has anyone in this thread ever claimed that Marx did not start as a Hegelianist or that his work has no influences by Hegel?? You could equally well have argued that the Earth is round if that helps you feel knowledgeable...
First, you claimed Marx never wrote about Hegel's End of History, which is to say History moves in stages of conflict cycles progressing toward human freedom. Now you are saying that of course he was a Hegelian! I'm stating the obviously by bringing up his Hegelian roots. Naturally. Why would anyone want to interact with you on an intellectual basis?
> Yep, it is invalid. It doesn't matter what scholars say. I am a scholar myself.
No, you aren't.
> So, I am still waiting for those quotes...
I suppose you want those quotes in the original German too, to avoid tarnishing his perfect words, right?
I told you in 'Capital', Marx wrote that his philosophy was Hegel turned upside-down. That's the evidence. 'Capital' is a terribly written book, but it's available for your review. Marx doesn't write like a normal human either. It's basically crude mind-numbing German philosophy. Here is a quote from 'A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy'
"The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness."
Is what he's saying clear to you? He's saying that the consciousness of society (zeitgeist) is determined by the economic conditions of that society. In other words, his thesis is that if you change the economic conditions, society will develop a higher consciousness. This is Hegelianism but instead of the weltgeist-zeitgeist dialectic, it's class struggle which drives the progression History toward a higher consciousness.
It is not simply that Marx was a Hegelian in his youth, his entire philosophy is an inversion of Hegelianism in his own words. Do you comprehend? In his own words, he's Hegel inverted. There is nothing more to discuss as far as I am concerned. Insults and bickering doesn't accomplish anything. Furthermore, in the same reply you admit Marx may have had bad theories! That's my point exactly.
> As a matter of fact, I never argued that Marx has correct theories.
Thank you for admitting this. My point was that Marx has highly questionable theories.
> Things you attribute to him are not his theories in the first place.
Actually, Marx and Engels wrote about the stages of History in (the long titled book) The German Ideology Part One, with Selections from Parts Two and Three, together with Marx's "Introduction to a Critique of Political Economy." He describes how ancient societies progressed into feudalism, then to capitalism and predicted that History would necessarily move to socialism and finally communism. Similar stages of History are central to Hegel, which is where the idea comes from.
Marx's concept of history (Historical Materialism), was that historical change was located in economic class struggle, as opposed to Hegel who believed it was a dialectical struggle between spirit and idea. Obviously Marx wrote about "emancipation," how capitalism supposedly alienated mankind and how as History necessarily moved toward Communism. Blah, blah. It's Hegel's influence, again. The two philosophies are linked by inheritance.
No one disputes that Marx believed an awareness shift and the liberation of man. It's Hegel, again. In Marx's view, the final stage of history is supposed to be the liberation of mankind, both in terms of material conditions and consciousness. In other words, the End of History. No need to go further, because Marx's perfect ideal has been achieved. But this only works if material conditions are the only thing between man and freedom.
It doesn't take into account man's own faults. Narcissism, sociopathy and stupidity to name a few.
It's not possible to separate Hegelianism from Marxism, because Marxism is Hegelianism inverted. Hegel's Dialectics was turned on it's head by Marx to become 'Dialectical materialism'. It's where Marx derives his theory of History and the dialectical progression toward his socialist ideal. Frankly, Marx is a dense and clumsy writer. What I've read of Marx's body of work is precious time I wish I hadn't wasted.
> I am dying
If only. The best I can do is out you on the block List. Goodbye.
