Introduction: An Historical Survey of the Hegel-Marx Connection

Fraser, Ian; Burns, Tony

doi:10.1057/9780230595934_1

Cited by 6 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Before that, Ian Fraser and Tony Burns’s otherwise rich introduction to a rich collection also repeats the same cliché when it visits the 1857 “Introduction”: “for Marx the ‘scientifically correct method’ in the discipline of political economy is the ascent from ‘simple relations, such as labour, division of labour, need, exchange value, to the level of the state, exchange between nations and the world market’” (Ian Fraser and Tony Burns, “Introduction: An Historical Survey of the Hegel-Marx Connection,” in The Hegel-Marx Connection , ed. Tony Burns and Ian Fraser (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2000), 4). In this regard, also see, Mario Duayer’s recent critical review, in which he lists other examples of this “standard interpretation” – as he calls it (Mario Duayer, “Marx: The Method of Political Economy as an Ontological Critique,” in Marx and Contemporary Critical Theory: The Philosophy of Real Abstraction , ed.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The historical and the transhistorical in Marx’s dialectical method

Keikhaee

2021

Philosophy & Social Criticism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This essay revisits the question of alterations in Marx’s view of method from the 1857 “Introduction” to Capital. In the wake of the belated upsurge of interest in Marx’s notebooks of 1857–8, posthumously published as the Grundrisse, a dominant interpretation has been developed in Marx scholarship which characterizes the method of the “Introduction” as an ascent from the (transhistorical) abstract to the (historical) concrete and, upon such characterization, stresses the mature Marx’s departure from it. Rereading the 1857 “Introduction” with an emphasis on the theoretical import of its examples, I argue, against this interpretation, that although this text does not provide a fully worked-out account of method, it nevertheless offers invaluable insights into some of the central methodological problems with which Marx was concerned and in response to which his dialectical method was developed. In particular, I highlight what could be called Marx’s critical historicist approach to the categories and argue that this approach, together with his specific understanding of the process of the reproduction of the concrete in thought, constitute the lasting pillars of Marx’s dialectical method, in the 1857 “Introduction” as well as in Capital. Finally, in a concluding section, I re-examine the methodological status of the commodity and argue that the post-1857 emergence of the commodity as Marx’s favourite starting point does not represent a fundamental change, or a reversal, in his view of method.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The historical and the transhistorical in Marx’s dialectical method

Keikhaee

2021

Philosophy & Social Criticism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Hegel and the Foundations of Literary Theory

Habib

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hegel, Marxism and Mysticism

Fraser

2000

Bull. Hegel Soc. G.B.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Marx's comments on Hegel's philosophy have left an ambiguous legacy for Marxism. One pervasive theme, though, is the interpretation of Hegel's idealist philosophy as being shrouded in mysticism. Marx's main contribution, according to this view, was to demystify Hegel's thought through a more materialist dialectical approach. At the same time, however, there have been those who have sought to rupture this Hegel-Marx connection and purge Hegelianism from Marxism altogether. Appropriate and expunge have therefore been the two main responses to Hegel's influence on Marxism. I will argue against these traditions, however, to assert a more direct relationship between Hegel's and Marx's dialectic. To do so, I want to identify some of the main Marxist thinkers that can be linked with the two main schools above. I will term these the Hegelian-Marxist Materialist Appropriators and the Idealist Expungers. In contrast I put forward the Hegelian-Marxist Materialist school which states that ultimately the dialectic of Hegel is the dialectic of Marx. Before this, I begin by considering some examples of Marx's critique of Hegel. The leitmotif of this critique is a depiction of Hegel's dialectic as mystical or idealistic in contrast to Marx's more materialist dialectic. As we shall see, such a criticism was begun by Marx, perpetuated by Engels as ‘orthodox’ Marxism and ultimately accepted even by those who sought to place themselves within an Hegelian-Marxist tradition.

show abstract

Introduction: An Historical Survey of the Hegel-Marx Connection

Cited by 6 publications

References 2 publications

The historical and the transhistorical in Marx’s dialectical method

The historical and the transhistorical in Marx’s dialectical method

Hegel and the Foundations of Literary Theory

Hegel, Marxism and Mysticism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About