Hegel and Marx After the Fall of Communism (Political Philosophy Now)
Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub
successive attempts at government and order which the Revolution was meant to achieve. Once entry into society is complete, the individual may well be unhappy and depressed with the state of the world, and may even abandon hope of ever improving it. Almost in spite of herself, however, the adult soon finds a place in the objective world and becomes accustomed to it. At first this world seems strange and new; there seems to be little pattern to what the individual does, and every event has a
relevant’ to contemporary politics ‘than that of Marx, the figure most commonly identified with the nineteenth-and twentieth-century political project of bringing dignity and power to the wretched of the earth’. For Keane, the fall of communism has brought into question Marx’s political legacy while revivifying Tom Paine’s. Not only is Paine’s bold rejection of tyranny and injustice as far-reaching as his nineteenth-century successor, but his practical proposals – as the collapse of communist
another instance in which England made Marx. Hegel’s case was quite different. He was an educator without independent means living in an authoritarian state. Hegel and his family relied on income from his jobs in publicly supported schools and universities. A noose of censorship and terror lay around his neck, and around the necks of his colleagues and students. ‘Hegelian language’, declares Carver, is deliberately difficult to interpret, for political reasons, not just philosophical ones.
remained unaware of Hölderlin’s importance for Hegel’s thought until the twentieth century. Wilhelm Dilthey, who initiated the study of Hegel’s intellectual development in 1907, noticed parallels between Hölderlin’s Empedokles poem fragments and the early Hegel’s Spirit of Christianity. In following decades, scholars saw intriguing connections between the two, but the relationship remained enigmatic. ‘Only in the mid 1960s – in the work of Otto Pöggeler and Dieter Henrich – was firm proof
allocation of commodities (including labour) through the mechanism of markets’. Market socialism shares neo-liberalism’s suspicion of government. Its advocates want ‘to rid socialism of the pejorative association with the domineering state and the failures of state planning, and to show that the economic efficiency promised by the market is fully reconcilable with socialist forms of ownership’.11 Market socialism is advocated by writers convinced of its economic and political feasibility in an