Got Ph.D. in philosophy at Jena University (where Hegel taught). Wrote more-or-less-irrelevant-to-our-discussion dissertation on Greek philosophy.
As editor of the Neue Rhenische Zeitung [New Rhineland Times] socialist newspaper frin 1842-1844 (age 24-26). He had to confront practical political questions. Thus in the arena.
Disliked (French) utopian socialism, but lacked theoretical resources to rebut it.
Prussian "death sentence" on his paper, resignation from paper (due to its publisher's attempts to soften the paper's stand)
Did critical review of Hegel in 1844 to ground his own ideas.
Philosophy of history: The lives of great men? The sequence of great events (e.g., battles)? Something else?
We start with the German philosopher Hegel, who argued that we could understand legal relations (and the form of the state generally) in terms of the growth of Spirit through time. This Spirit grows through the dialectic of thesis — antithesis — synthesis. To give a concrete example, the "thesis" is that "the existing form of society is good". The antithesis is any objection to this, any criticism of the society. This results in a synthesis in which the two are reconciled through a new statement about the form of society, which then becomes the new thesis in the cycle. Why is a synthesis required? — because once the antithesis is lodged, you can't "put the toothpaste back in the tube."
However, Hegel is unclear what forces a form of life to change — why change just because someone objects? — and is unclear what constitutes a sufficient antithesis, since there are multiple aspects of any society to which one might object, and the objections themselves might be contradictory. (Should we become more religious? Less religious? Differently religious?)
[Other philosophers argued you could understand legal relations (and the form of the state generally) in their own terms, so to speak, but I will not discuss them here, because "on their own terms" is an illusion; we always view things through cognitive filters. "Euclid alone / Has looked on Beauty bare. Fortunate they / Who, though only once and then but far away / Have heard her massive sandal set on stone." (Edna St. Vincent Millay)]
In this reading, which is, next to the Manifesto, one of Marx's most-quoted pieces, Marx disagrees with both these perspectives, believing that legal relations (and the form of the state generally) are governed by a dialectic based on material forces. Thus his theory is often called "dialectical materialism".
Marx distinguishes material productive forces (technology, tools, the "means of production") from productive relations (the way people organize themselves into an economy to make use of these forces to survive).
Productive relations are the base of a society, while the legal / political / ethical / philosophical relations (or ideas or consciousness) are the superstructure.
Change in productive forces is the key transformative element. When new productive forces arise, then relations of production are changed to fit them, and new legal [etc.] relations arise to justify them.
Consider feudalism. When the productive forces of the bourgeoisie arose in the cities (e.g., new technologies of manufacturing, like the printing press and big sailing ships), then new means of social relations arose (craft guilds, limited liability corporations) and the new philosophy of classical liberalism came along.
Thesis: "Modern society is good." [I have deliberately made this an ambiguous thesis. It includes many implicit / latent / half-understood aspects, and is thus susceptible to many criticisms.]
[Let's do a bit of social criticism: write down 2-3 of what you consider major problems of our society. These are possible antitheses of the above thesis.]
I list below a number of possible antitheses — in particular, those advanced by the Religious Right. [For example, you might read the selections from Robert Bork or Ralph Reed.]
Note that the critiques highlight and criticize certain aspects of our society. Notice that the critiques are thus a choice and an interpretation; as the list of problems you produced should have revealed, there are lots of problems, so these specific ones are a selection and characterization of problems in the society:
But: does anyone pay attention to them???? As Marx would ask, what are the material forces powering these critiques? Alas, the forces powering them are not the dominant forces, so little attention gets paid to the critique of the Religious Right. The owning class like having a materialist culture; that's what lets them sell their goods and make their profits. The owning class don't mind secularism; God just gets in the way of selling things (e.g., on Sundays; e.g., having people turn their attention to spiritual instead of material desires). Nor are they concerned about the various sins cited above; they like having women in the workforce, because it drives down wages; the other issues just divert attention from the main purpose of making money. Thus we find a real lack of political support for these critiques:
Marx: capitalism hasn't played itself out. It still delivers the goods — and dominance.
What will make capitalism "play itself out"? What will that look like? [More "social criticism":]
Quiz question: xx
xx
The University of Minnesota is an
equal opportunity educator and employer.
Copyright © 2003-5 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights
reserved.