Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 01:17:21 -0800 From: Ralph Dumain <rdumain-AT-igc.apc.org> Subject: COLLETTI'S ANTI-HEGELIANISM LUCIO COLLETTI'S ANTI-HEGELIANISM Many commentators have discredited Colletti as a poor reader of Hegel. One convincing treatment is Tony Smith's "Hegelianism and Marx: A reply to Lucio Colletti" in Smith's DIALECTICAL SOCIAL THEORY AND ITS CRITICS. I am not going to defend Colletti, especially since I have not read his MARXISM AND HEGEL. But I do want to make some remarks on Colletti's essay "From Hegel to Marcuse" in FROM ROUSSEAU TO LENIN. I certainly cannot accept Colletti's naive partisanship for what he calls the Kant-Hume tradition over the Spinoza-Hegel one, especially his equation of the former with science and materialism. Regardless of my misgivings, however, I have an enormous emotional fondness for Colletti's essay. How could this be? I think it is because Colletti is a vociferous defender of science and exhibits a visceral revulsion toward idealism. Colletti hates Hegel because he sees his philosophy as manifesting three primary noxious tendencies: (1) For Hegel philosophy is always idealism; (2) the task of philosophy is to realize the principle of idealism; (3) idealism realizes implies "the destruction of the finite and the annihilation of the world". This third principle is roundly refuted by Tony Smith. Nonetheless, I retain a sympathy for Colletti also here. It may not be true that Hegel conceptually annihilates the world, but when what considers what idealism does to the materiality of reality, one could reasonably see this as a form of annihilation. Going back to the epoch of the Young Hegelians, Colletti roots out the long-established notion that divides Hegel's method from his system and declares the former revolutionary and the latter conservative. Engels himself took this path. So did Lukacs and Marcuse. Colletti trashes Marcuse with an enthusiasm I find quite inspiring. Colletti sees Marcuse as an exemplification of a romantic idealist reaction against science and takes down Horkheimer, Adorno, and Lukacs in the process of criticizing this romantic idealism. With unbridled scorn towards Lukacs and then Marcuse, Colletti states: "The old repugnance of philosophical spiritualism towards production, technology, and science, in a word, the horror of machines, was now cloaked by the fascination of the critique of modern bourgeois society. The kernal of Marcuse's philosophy is precisely here. Oppression is science. 'Reification' is to recognize that things exist outside ourselves." [p. 134] In a final rant against Marcuse's ONE-DIMENSIONAL MAN, Colletti dismisses Marcuse as an anti-Marxist liberal. Colletti's scorn is delicious! I would agree that Colletti's criticism is somewhat one-dimensional and one-sided, yet I loved every minute of it. Why? Besides it resonates with my initial reactions against huge chunks of Western, Hegelian Marxism. I am beginning to study this whole area now after ignoring it for years. So disgusted was my initial reaction to the anti-scientific, idealistic and oh-so-German-German-German snobbery of the Frankfurters I couldn't bring myself to study them. I thought Habermas' early KNOWLEDGE AND HUMAN INTERESTS was such a piece of shit I never read another word he wrote, though I will concede he has one or two things of minor import to say. Only recently did I realize how much I had missed out on by not seriously studying the Frankfurters. (Recently I cracked Marcuse's REASON AND REVOLUTION for the first time.) But Colletti reminds me of why: the cheap anti-scientific, idealistic snobbery of the refined European humanistic intellectual. Now I am keenly interested in the whole Hegelian tradition. But Colletti reminded me of my roots. --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005