Here I will post reflections on Marx's work, as I pass through the course on Classical sociological theory. My first reflection appears below and deals with Marx's introduction to the critique of Hegel's philosophy of right- it is posted as a comment, since the system prevented me effectively from cutting and pasting from word here, but not there.
Notes and reflection on “Contribution to the Critique of Hegels’ Philosophy of Right, an Introduction”
ReplyDeleteIn this essay we say an amalgam of two of the Marx’s we have been discussing- the poetic and the revolutionary. We have seen Marx turn philosophy on its head, and attribute Germany’s backwards status to misallocation of intellectual energy- spent on the critique of theology by philosophy instead of focusing on the emancipation of man itself- and to focus on the wrong questions. Thus Marx exhorts that we focus on the tasks at hand: “Thus the criticism of heaven is transformed into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion in o the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics” (Marx 1844; Tucker 1978). Marx recognized one of the functions of religion in providing consolation to the people from their suffering and exploitation. However, the effect was that of an analgesic and served only to numb pain not to remove its cause. Marx wants philosophy in the hands of the people, its energies focused on practical and material concerns that can be used as a weapon of intellect on the status quo and on all that enslaves man.
The revolutionary reveals himself in this essay, and begins first with pointing out that Germany is so far behind that even when it solves the questions it has posed itself will be far behind. “If I negate the German situation of 1843 according to French chronology, hardly reached the year 1789, and still less the vital centre of the present day” (ibid.). Why is this the case? Because Germany is posing the question of simply a “political revolution”, or one that would exchange one set of exploiters for another, and not one which seeks to abolish exploitation. Whereas, the French are already discussing the abolition of monopoly, and thus imposing a limit on a particular capitalist expression, Germany has not yet achieved “the final consequences of monopoly” and seeks the rule of the bourgeoisie and the rule of private property.
Marx fine-tunes the questions. He points out that the focus has been to narrow, that the class struggle is ubiquitous and deals with general principles and is not simply the mater of a German case study. “The relation between the different spheres of German society is, therefore, not dramatic, but epic” (ibid.). The question is the class struggle, and this is a matter, which matters to more than just the Germans.
Marx proposes the beginning of his solution, and his future focus: the proletariat. The proletariat is the class that has “radical chains”, one that seeks not to change the dynamics of the class system by putting those with money to rule over those with less or none- through the overthrow of the monarchy by the bourgeoisie, but the overthrow of the entire class system by the working class, the producers. For the proletariat are the ones who “cannot emancipate itself without emancipating itself from all other spheres of society, without, therefore, emancipating all these other spheres, which is, in short a total loss of humanity and which can only redeem itself by a total redemption of humanity” (ibid.). Thus the proletariat are to become the instrument, guided by philosophy in its hands, of socialist revolution through a class struggle to scientifically abolish the root causes of exploitation, and divisions between men, and hence, class struggles (and therefore practical politics) themselves.