File spoon-archives/marxism.archive/marxism_1995/95-02-28.000, message 239


From: Hans Despain <DESPAIN-AT-econ.sbs.utah.edu>
Date:          Wed, 22 Feb 1995 17:29:03 GMT-700
Subject:       Re: dialectic Goldstein


Goldstein, perhaps your right in saying that Marx is preserving 
something of Hegel, I am trying to argue this myself.  The question 
is, if we follow Marx's critique what is left of Hegel?  Colletti 
shows that nothing is left, Marxists should return to Kant as Marx 
seemingly, according to Colletti, did.  This seems to throw the 
baby out with the bath water.  There is, however, very good evidence 
that this is not the case (need I list them, they never seem to make 
believers out of the dis-believers).  It seems we agree about this.

I am not sure how Marx adopts Hegel, but I am quite sure that he 
adopts very much of it.  Over the weekend I am going to work on 
something to present over the line of Hegel's structure and self-
subsuming system of *Logic*.  This is presenting the *universality*, 
*particularity* and *individuality*, which Tony Smith touches on in 
is *Dialectical Social Theory*, I personal believe that it is quite 
important for Marx.  I am not convinced that this is the actual 
structure of Marx's *Capital*, but I do believe that Marx is using 
this U-P-I adopted from Hegel, perhaps not strictly, and certianly 
not exculsively.

Until then, I feel that you are reading to much into what I 
presented as Hegel's four-step 'principle of identity.'  However, you 
are quite right (I believe) to point out that Marx's issue with the 
*speculative philosophy* is most damaging to step four (X is X after 
all).  But it is when the dialectic is released from the cluthes of 
the *speculative philosophy* that it is of use for self-conscious 
human emancipation.  Therefore, it seems you are right to point out 
that it must be within steps 1,2 and 3, that would be expected to be 
the most important (quasi) perservations for Marx.  Personally I 
believe Marx must have a different ontological view then does Hegel, 
this is quite problematic however.  Perhaps this is where Bhaskar 
becomes so important.  





     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005