bhandari at berkeley.edu
Tue Sep 8 19:09:45 MDT 2009
The claim is that one can only understand Marx if one has mastered the
whole of Hegel's logic, not that a mastery of Hegel's logic may allow a
few individuals to better appreciate Marx's Capital. Lenin's claim
strikes me as false; so does Dunayevskaya's claims about the Hegelian
absolute. If I am trying to understand the way in which Marx understands
the mediations that make up a totality or real contradictions or unities
of opposites or epochal historical developments, what is it that Hegel
alone will clarify about what Marx has written? If I am trying to
understand Marx, my time would be better spent re-reading him than
commencing a study of the whole of Hegel's logic.
And I don't think Marx's beginning with the commodity is an attempt to
mirror Hegel's beginning with sense certainty in the Phenomenology.
Let's not forget that such a claim (Marx's Capital transposes Hegel's
Phenomenology) was the central thesis of arch Marx critic Robert Tucker
whose Marx reader is perhaps still the most widely used.
More information about the Marxism