Wednesday, May 24, 2006


(....) Marx attempted to address this problem; realising that - though the technical problems are themselves difficult and demand certain types of language - this has the effect of taking them away from the mainstream, into the academy. Change, Marx felt, must happen outside of that context; indeed, he felt it could only happen outside of it. With that in mind, he operated two systems, as it were: one as technical and difficult as that of Hegel, Kant, etc., the other consisting of polemic. The latter was meant to garner reactions both from people who could understand his philosophy and those who could never hope to, but who could see in his polemic something which described their lives and made them want to fight. Even with that double strategy, however, the versions of communism we have had and which Marx and Engels are blamed for have never been anything more than shallow immitations of that imperative. The problem remains to this day: how does one change the world for the better? And how can ideas and insights aid in that fight? Best wishes e24s esoterian24skidoo 23/05/2006 12:06 Thanks for your most recent comment. Its detail and your engagement is most appreciated. We are, we feel, in broad agreement. There are, to be sure, important differences between Marx's treatment of 'the future' and that of Hegel. Marx was more directly predictive. There was a pragmatic component to this; insofar as he was actively attempting to affect mass response. Hegel's audience, though no less ambitious in essence, was, we believe, distinctly more rarefied, more philosophical (as opposed to political), if you will. That said, the ultimate effect wanted by both could be termed political. As we said, we respect all efforts made with good faith. In citing such a thing as 'mysticism', as detected in some aspects of Hegel's critique, we did not mean to infer anything other than differences with the kind of straight, scientific approach demanded today, and that that fact alone has led to misinterpretation and misuse of Hegel's ideas and the man himself, as an historical figure. This, in fact, is what you are saying yourself, we feel. All ideas are misued, are they not? Hegel like all thinkers is caricatured and co-opted willy-nilly. One real reason for this, though, is the very difficulty of his work. (Continued...) esoterian24skidoo 22/05/2006 04:31 Thank you for directing us toward appropriate links - viz Hegel:Popper issues raised. We did, though, enjoy Popper's On the Poverty of Historicism. But, being avid and commited Marxians, we do have trouble with the central plank of his criticism of Marx's philosophy. Popper has, in that respect, too often been a source of seemingly useable Rightist ideas for fools of that persuasion. Hegelian philosophy has frayed, overly-mystical, perhaps too-romantic edges; and as a huge systemic critique, it is certainly out of favour with current trends. We, however, try to respect any and all efforts made in good faith. We are all only human, of course. Best wishes, esoterian24skidooDo please gander amongst our images and notes at


Post a Comment

<< Home