Well: Have You Read And Fully Understood The Whole Of Hegel's Logic? The above question is thrown into stark relief by Lenin's surprising and oft-quoted remark that not a single Marxist up until his day -- which must have included Engels, Dietzgen, Kautsky, Luxemburg, and Plekhanov -- actually understood Marx's
Capital, since none of them had fully mastered Hegel's
Logic!
It is impossible to understand Marx's Capital, and especially its first chapter, without having thoroughly studied and understood the whole of Hegel's Logic. Consequently, half a century later none of the Marxists understood Marx!! [Lenin (1961), p.180.]
{1} Clearly, Lenin's aside raises serious questions of its own. If professional revolutionaries find Hegel's work impossibly difficult to comprehend (few in my experience bother to consult much of what Hegel wrote, let alone attempt to study the entire
Logic -- but, which one (there were two!)?), is it credible that workers themselves can understand the whole of his
Logic fully? In which case -- if Lenin is correct --, what chance is there that anyone (revolutionary or worker) will ever make head or tail of Marx's
Capital?
Even worse, Lenin's comments suggest that only a tiny fraction (if that!) of revolutionaries have ever fully understood Marxism (or, at least
Capital). Lenin is quite clear: only those Marxists who have "thoroughly studied and understood the whole of Hegel's
Logic" can claim to comprehend
Capital; short of that they can't. Again, how many revolutionaries have thoroughly studied and understood the whole of Hegel's
Logic (let alone read it) since Lenin's day? Even professional philosophers find that work daunting.
Nevertheless, a far more serious and intractable question is the following: How would it be possible to decide if anyone has
ever actually understood all of Hegel's
Logic?
Plainly, we can't enquire of Hegel what the correct interpretation of his work is. Even Lenin himself failed to provide us with a comprehensive (or comprehensible) account of all of Hegel's
Logic. And, as we know with regard to the interpretation of that other (but far less) obscure book --
The Bible --, it is always open for someone to claim that their interpretation is the correct one, while all the rest aren't, with no empirically viable way of deciding between them.
Of course, as we shall see, this is precisely what allows sectarians to impose their own brand orthodoxy on their corner of the militant market.
Indeed, buried in here somewhere is one of the main reasons for the ideological sectarianism that appears to be endemic in revolutionary Marxism; the
Logic is to DM as The Bible is to Theology. In both of these books, a 'correct' interpretation functions as a test of orthodoxy; their use is both a source of mystification and a guarantor of righteousness.
[DM = Dialectical Materialism]
This being so, few among the rank-and-file will feel confident (or foolish) enough to question the theoretical deliverances made on their behalf by the likes of Stalin, Mao, Mandel, Healy, Pablo, Grant, Avakian -- or whoever.
Of course, few scientists would be foolish enough to make similar claims for any of the classics of science -- not even of Darwin's
Origin or Newton's
Principia --, that only if the latter were studied from end to end, and thoroughly understood, could an aspiring researcher/student claim to comprehend modern science. One guesses that only a minority of scientists have actually read all or most of the classics in their field, but that fact does not materially affect their work.
Now, even though revolutionary theory is different from other scientific disciplines, that does not mean that incomprehensible philosophical texts must be treated in such a theological way, with every word regarded as required reading, and every syllable understood, before initiation can begin. And yet, Lenin's aside indicates that this is exactly how Hegel's
Logic should be viewed by the DM-faithful: only the correct understanding of this intractably obscure work -- in its entirety -- is sufficient to allow novice socialists to proceed to the next level and try to understand Marx's classic, and before they too can presume to spread the Good News.
Of course, this is all rather puzzling since Marx himself never claimed this of his own work. {2}Notes{1} In order to counter such ridiculous consequences, two comrades -- i.e., Woods and Grant [in Woods and Grant (1995), p.76] -- have argued that Lenin was deliberately exaggerating here. This is, of course, entirely possible, but it is certainly not the way Lenin has been interpreted by subsequent Marxists.
On this, note Andy Blunden's comments:
Hegel is the philosophical predecessor of Marx, and we have Lenin's word for it that Marx cannot be understood without first understanding Hegel. [Empson (2005), p.166.]
http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=61&issue=105 Naturally, this passage of Lenin's helps account for something that would otherwise be inexplicable: the fascination that Hegel's
Logic has exercised on prominent revolutionaries -- including STD's and OT's. If Lenin was merely exaggerating --, or that is how he had been perceived --, this would not have happened.
[STD = Stalinist Dialectician; OT = Orthodox Trotskyist.]
For example, not only do we find a Trotskyist of the stature of Raya Dunayevskaya writing several books in the futile attempt to comprehend Hegel's Logic, we witness her reiterating this famous claim (albeit watered down a tad):
Here, specifically, we see the case of Lenin, who had gone back to Hegel, and had stressed that it was impossible to understand Capital, especially its first chapter, without reading the whole of the Science…. [Dunayevskaya (2002), p.328.]
And, this is what Bertell Ollman had to say:
Even from this brief outline, it is apparent that Marx's Hegelian heritage is too complex to allow simple characterization. Hegel never ceased being important for Marx, as Lenin, for example, perceived when he wrote in his notebook in 1914, 'It is impossible completely to understand Marx's Capital, and especially its first chapters, without having thoroughly studied and understood the whole of Hegel's Logic. Consequently, half a century later none of the Marxists understood Marx' [Ollman (1976), p.35.]
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/a_ch03.php Furthermore, it is worth noting that Lenin himself admitted that he found certain parts of Hegel's
Logic impossibly obscure, or just plain nonsense. [Cf., Lenin (1961), pp.103, 108, 117, 229.]
Hence, if correct, this would mean that even Lenin did not understand Capital! It is impossible to understand Marx's Capital, and especially its first chapter, without having thoroughly studied and understood the whole of Hegel's Logic. Consequently, half a century later none of the Marxists understood Marx!! [Lenin (1961), p.180.]
Notice that Lenin did not refer to just 99.9% of Hegel's
Logic, but the "whole" of it.
Finally, there is no evidence that Marx himself made this claim about his own work -- nor is there any that he had ever thoroughly studied and thoroughly understood Hegel's
Logic. This either means that the
Logic is largely irrelevant to any student of
Capital, or Marx did not understand his own book! On this see Note
{2} below
{2} Marx certainly laid down no such preconditions for understanding his work. In fact, if anything he tended to play down Hegel's influence. However, so deep has Lenin's myth sunk into the collective Dialectical Mind that that particular comment will elicit immediate disbelief. But it is nonetheless true for all that. And this is why:
Marx himself pointed out that the relevance of Hegel's Philosophy could be summarised in a few printers' sheets:
What was of great use to me as regards method of treatment was Hegel's Logic at which I had taken another look by mere accident, Freiligrath having found and made me a present of several volumes of Hegel, originally the property of Bakunin. If ever the time comes when such work is again possible, I should very much like to write 2 or 3 sheets making accessible to the common reader the rational aspect of the method which Hegel not only discovered but also mystified. [Marx to Engels, 16/01/1858; MECW, Volume 40, p.248. Bold emphasis added.]
Needless to say, Marx never supplied his readers with such a précis. From this we may perhaps draw the conclusion that in the end Marx did not think Hegel's method was all that significant. So, despite all the millions of words he committed to paper, he did not consider it important enough to write out these relatively few pages. Meanwhile, and in contrast, Marx spent a whole year of his life banging on about Karl Vogt, but still he could not be bothered with this 'vitally important' summary. [This obscure work of Marx's has so far been deemed unfit to publish on the Marx Internet Archive, so poor is it.]
Even had Marx done so, it would still have meant that only a tiny fraction of Hegel's work is relevant to understanding
Capital: a few pages!
Attentive readers too will have noticed that Marx says he encountered Hegel's
Logic by "accident"; this hardly suggests he was a constant or avid reader of that work. Indeed, he did not even possess his own copy of Hegel's
Logic and had to be given one as a present by Freiligrath!
Much has been made of certain references to Hegel in Marx's later work. However, a close reading of these reveals a picture that is different from the standard one retailed by DM-apologists. The scattered remarks about Hegelian Philosophy (outside his analysis of Hegel's political ideas) found in Marx's published works are inconclusive. [More details in the full Essay.]
Marx himself declared:
...I therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker" and even, here and there in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the mode of expression peculiar to him. [Marx (1976), p.103. Bold emphasis added.]
His use of the word "coquetted" also suggests Hegel's
Logic had only a superficial influence, merely confined to certain "modes of expression", and limited to just a few sections of his great work. And as far as Marx "openly" avowing himself a pupil of Hegel, he pointedly put this in the
past tense:
I criticised the mystificatory side of the Hegelian dialectic nearly thirty years ago, at a time when is was still the fashion. But just when I was working on the first volume of Capital, the ill-humoured, arrogant and mediocre epigones who now talk large in educated German circles began to take pleasure in treating Hegel in the same way as the good Moses Mendelssohn treated Spinoza in Lessing's time, namely as a 'dead dog'. I therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker" and even, here and there in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the mode of expression peculiar to him. [Ibid., pp.102-03. Bold emphases added.]
This is hardly a ringing endorsement, and is equivocal at best; Marx does not say he is
now a pupil of Hegel, but that he once was. Of course, it might still have been the case that he was such when the above was written, but there is nothing here to suggest that Marx viewed the link between his own and Hegel's work as Lenin did.
Woods and Grant note that Lenin argued that Marx did leave behind a his own version of Hegel's Logic, namely
Das Kapital [Woods and Grant (1995), p.76.] but Marx's own words (that he merely "coquetted" with Hegelian terminology) shows that this is more than an "exaggeration" on Lenin's part,
it's a fabrication.
Finally, it could be argued that the
Grundrisse (i.e., Marx (1973)) is living disproof of much of the above. Well, it would have been had Marx seen fit to publish it, but he didn't, and so it isn't.
But he
did publish this:
...I therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker" and even, here and there in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the mode of expression peculiar to him. [Marx (1976), p.103. Bold emphasis added.]
So, whatever it was that happened to Marx's thinking between the writing of the
Grundrisse and
Das Kapital, it clearly changed his view of Hegel's
Logic -- to such an extent that its phraseology merely became something with he wished to "coquette". In that case, Lenin should have said:
It is possible to understand Marx's Capital, and especially its first chapter, merely by coquetting here and there with the phraseology of Hegel's Logic. Consequently, half a century later anyone who is capable of coquetting will understand Marx!! [Edited misquotation of Lenin (1961), p.180.]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an exceprt from my latest Essay "The Politics Of Metaphysics; Dialectical Materialism: An Alien-Class Theory"; more details and references can be found here:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2009_01.htm
Logged
