Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition by Glenn Magee (2001)

It makes you wonder just how much of Hegel did Marx actually read?

Or understand?

Here are some excerpts from this book as posted on a right-wing Christian site...so it's possible that the quotes might not be completely accurate or might be taken out of context.

http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/spirituality/hegel.htm

Red, Marx was influenced by the Young Hegelians, who, as Magee points out, emptied Hegel of much of his mysticism and theosophy, to give his ideas a 'left' interpretation and make it acceptable to liberal opinion.

That clearly made Hegel acceptable to Marx, too -- but as we both know, he held Hegel at arms length.

Engels, Plekhanov and Lenin (among others) are the ones responsible for introducing these Hermetic ideas into the workers' movement.

After a couple of generations, with little to show for their high theory, and a working class that was not overthrowing the bosses, they turned en masse to this opiate. Engels after the decline in class struggle in the 1860's, Lenin after the defeat of the Russian Revolution in 1905, Trotsky after the defeat of the 1917 revolution under the heel of Stalin (and after the defeat of the Hungarian, German, Chinese and Spanish revolutions).

Dialecticians today need this opiate; the larger the working class become, the more they ignored these dialectical Marxists. The latter fail to see the connection, so they just snort another line. [They do it in public here!] This clouds their vision some more, and the whole sorry affair takes another spin around the dancehall of the dialectic.

However, another book worth noting, one that Magee omits to mention (mainly because I suspect it was way off-topic), is the path-breaking study "Karl Marx and the Intellectual Origins of Dialectical Materialism" by J White. It traces the links between German Romanticism (which was the German version of Hermeticism), German Idealism and Marx himself.

Historical materialism, in comparison is traceable to the Scottish school of historical materialists, Ferguson, Millar and Smith (the famous economist from whom Marx also got the labour theory of value!), and to a lesser extent David Hume.

So we historical materialists do not need Hegel at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Ferguson

http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/ferguson.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Millar

"Despite his criticisms of classical political economy, Marx learned much from the Scottish historical school, which included Smith, Adam Ferguson, William Robertson, and John Millar – all of whom might be considered early economic sociologists (Meek 1954). These thinkers pioneered a materialist conception of history, which fully appreciated that category of social phenomena known as ‘the unintended consequences of social action’."

This is from:

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarr...s/ieesmarx.htm

"In the 18th cent. important work in economics was done by the Scottish philosopher David Hume . His analysis of the natural advantages that some nations enjoy in the cultivation of certain products and his observations on the flow of commerce became the basis for the theory of international trade. The most important work of the 18th cent., however, was Adam Smith 's An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776), which is considered by many to be the first complete treatise on economics. Smith identified self-interest as the basic economic force and, through his analysis of the division of labor and his comprehensive study of the development of economic institutions in the West, established economics as a major area of study. John Millar , a follower of Smith, incorporated and developed these ideas into a highly sophisticated economic interpretation of history. Smith's theories, especially his advocacy of free trade , played an important part in the Industrial Revolution then taking place in Britain. "

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/e...ndAdamSmith.asp

-----oOo------

Dialectics -- just say “no” to this drug….

Or do cold turkey at:

http://www.anti-dialectics.org

Again I think you’re flogging a dead dog…if you wanted to flog philosophical notions detrimental to the anti-capitalists movement I’d be attacking post-modernism.

I daresay Hegel is a "dead dog" and was considered so even while Marx was still alive.

But there are still a lot of people who "want to be" Marxists and have been "authoritatively informed" that "dialectics" is "part of the package".

As if "there's no choice" in the matter.

By relentlessly skewering the mythology of "dialectics", Rosa is not only demonstrating that we all do have a choice...but that the correct choice is not what we've been told it was!

If "dialectics" were but an amusing game that a few intellectuals enjoyed playing in the privacy of their own homes, no one would care. It would be an "acquired taste"...like chess.

But we live in the shadow of an entire century in which it was stoutly maintained that "dialectics" was a "magical key" to "deep understanding" of social reality and how to change it.

There was (and remains!) simply no limit to the nonsense that can be "justified" by "dialectics".

While there are material conditions responsible for the failures of the 20th century left, I don't see how anyone can reasonably dispute that "dialectics" played a significant role in hiding the extent of our failures from ourselves.

It's almost as if having inherited from Marx the revolutionary tools of historical materialism, we chose instead to rely on the shapes of birds' livers.

Well, that must stop! :angry:

Just as alchemy was replaced by chemistry, "dialectics" must be replaced by historical materialism.

My position is zero tolerance for metaphysics in a scientific Marxism.

And bury the damn dog once and for all!

I quite agree with you that post-modernism is an utterly wretched "paradigm" that begins by "biting its own tail" and goes downhill from there. Whenever it comes up in a political context, I'm always happy to hammer it!

Imagine an argument between a post-modernist and a "master of the dialectic".

Like watching clowns "fight" at the circus.

Monty, making the same point over and over will not stop me:

(1) Because I aim to expose the ruling-class origins of all traditional Philosophy (of which dialectics is a rather poor second-cousin) and and not just the obscure Hermetic melange dreamt up by Hegel -- as you would know if you had read my latest Essay;

and

(2) You are flogging an even deader dog. The Low Church brand of DM I am attacking (while making the above general assault on all of Philosophy) still has a massive impact on active revolutionaries. If you are not aware of this, that is your problem.

Now you can totally ignore what I have to say at my site, pick an argument with me, or go and whistle Dixie for all I care -- but at least try to get my ideas right....

Oh, and by the way, in my attack on all brands of Philosophy, I aim to pull rug from under PoMo too.

Ambitious claims, I hear you say.

Hey, but it's the kind of gal I am.