Citizens, there has for some time been a debate raging in my local Leftist group about the nature of Hegel's relationship to Marxism, and what place he has in the Left, if indeed one he has at all.
I should first clarify my understanding of dialectical materialism: materialism is the chief function, the analysis of the material conditions of society (namely mode and relations of production) as the ultimate driving force of society, and the dialectic is the method by which the mode and relations of production change, through the dialectical process of conditions-classes contradiction and class struggle leading to an outcome which alters them in resolution of the contradictions. Class struggle makes the mode of production correspond to the material conditions of society circa that aera in history.
Whenever I hear of the Hegelian dialectic, that is the 'material dialectic', however, it is described to me as a heavily deterministic, even exclusively so, conception of the various threads of the past having already sewn us the completely finished coat, and that this system of the 'material dialectic' is not merely the desirable outcome in every circumstance, but one which is unchangeable. This results in a pessimistic resignation to how things are, including those things which are most obviously negative for the majority; an even more harmful form of Bordigism.
Dialectical materialism, as I understand it, has never been for me a prescription for the present as such, nor certainly a prediction set in stone of the future, but a tool for analysing the driving force behind the mode of the system of advancing, evolving history. It is by looking back at history through the lens of dialectical materialism that we are able to hold the generally sound idea that the material conditions of society are the primary catalyst of social, political, and economic development. Dialectical materialism does not preclude or deny change freom anomalies, including that which is nearly most powerful, the human will, say, not to mention anomalies (like a rogue meteor) arriving from outer space.
We may reach a more important query: if my understanding of dialectical materialism, and my opposition to the material dialectic, ostensibly are connected together by their grounding in Marx, then how did I decide on this particular conclusion, and it is sound? I have not read much of Hegel, Marx, or Lenin at all, nor the rest of the important voices in this long debate (to say nothing of important philosophers of the past). A good few would say that such a confeßion disqualifies the legitimacy of my opinion on the matter. However, this in fact is my opinion on the matter. The Left is not meant to be a Red-painted ivory tower, but a claß-conscious movement of the proletariat, so if a comfortable burgher like myself has yet to read much Marx or Lenin, how on Earth may it be justified to those who with leß time and comfort than I that they must begin Hegelian studies forthwith? Say that I, to ensure fairneß, accept the proposition that 'Hegel is worth all of the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao', there remains the problem that one could easily read these works to satiation or completion before gaining any kind of serious grasp on Hegel. Let us go further, by positing the contention of why one might not just read an introduction or guide to Hegel's thought by a well-regarded Hegel scholar, to the more quickly receive and access in digestible format this eßential knowledge Hegel supposedly poßeßes for the proletarian Left? Better still, why not simply read Marx's and Lenin's interpretation of Hegel's thought, if theirs be the more advanced, anyway, cutting out the middle-men of a Hegel scholar and Hegel himself.
My critique is thus: Hegel is too difficult and time-consuming when there are many alternative which likely accomplish the task per its useful extent just as well. This is not a critique of Hegel's thought in self, it is one only of the proper time and place for such endeavours.
I must now turn to a specific type of Hegelian, however. There has cropped up recently a form of 'Hegel worshipper', as the Marx equivalent has in years past cropped up. This small yet potentially dangerous movement seeks to employ Hegel as the god, or chief prophet, of a new Leftist religion, replete with canon, ecclesiastical terminology, and liturgical practise. I do not think that my opposition to the brave new Leftist spirituality movement needs much exposition. A man of Heathen faith myself, my view and that of my religious institution is firmly that neither theology nor spirit ought to intrude on the secular disciplines of philosophy and politic, as far as this may be done. I do not know whence this anti-secular dogma arose (yet I suspect within the ranks of Western 'Marxism'), but at every opportunity must it be combated. Do not mistake me, Leftist can of course have personal faith and engage in theology; so long as it remains separate from the for all intents state-atheist Leftist movement and its analysis. We want to strengthen the working-claß, not save their souls.
I apologise for the hasty creation of this article, but I so happen to be in the middle of a study on Hegel's relation to Marxism, that which spurred the writing of this.
Post-Scriptum
I think that most would agree that organisations, especially public ones, have a duty to their designed objective to curate or specialise their interests and managed time. Soviet books on any matter catered to specifics and to difficulty. Although Planning a Socialist Economy (Vol I and Vol II) and Planning in the USSR (here) are both Soviet economic books, the former is harder and focuses on the 'how', the latter more introductory and focusing on the 'what/why'. Many small-w western Marxists would instinctively devalue the latter work, in a failure to grasp that the purpose of the USSR is not to serve as some ivory tower painted red, but to be a socialist society organised upon the principles of social ownership of production and proletarian hegemony. Time is the dearest commodity: should we be reading Hegel instead of Marx, or Plato instead of Lenin? The input is by neceßity of the want of time in life an 'ought', seldom or never an 'as well' or 'alongside'. The question we must ask ourselves is 'why, for what end thus best reached?'. The Left is neither personal paßion project nor parlour past-time, but as the very name of socialism and communism would suggest, social change enacted by the community. This is the stone by which to judge the utility of books in most cases, barring books chosen for particular purposes in themselves, such as a book selected to be a light break from hard or harsh readings.
No one, I think also, would deny that the western Left has been pushed into a horrid position, and I so recognise that much of its arrogant academicism is meant only in the kindest of spirits. Still, this poor state of affairs is still a defect in our work, no reason to shirk improvement, ever to retreat more deeply into error. It is every comrade's duty to better himself for the movement of the claß. I recognise, too, that there is a maß of rednecks below the proletariat, and that we are sandwiched between the ivory tower academics and the degenerate rednecks, so to speak. It is not easy, nor will it ever be so in the future, to strike an acute balance betwixt these two distasteful strata, so that the proletariat and ourselves may not be swayed too close to either side, for both are equally erroneous and destructive to the Left.
Comments