Slavoj Zizek on Hegel, Marx, David Harvey, and the Labor Theory of Value
Interview · Give Them An Argument w/Ben Burgis ·
published 2023-02-25 · 0:24:01 · 2,656 words
the date above is when the video was uploaded, no recording date was found
capitalismcommunism-socialismhegel-dialecticshistoryeconomicsideologysexuality-genderphilosophy-general
Žižek reframes the standard 'Marx turns Hegel right-side-up' story. He argues Marx's mechanistic reductionism (the labor theory of value's hand-waved 'well-known process') inherits 19th-century mechanistic materialism, while Marx's Capital actually Hegelianizes political economy by showing capital behaves as a self-reproducing Hegelian notion. The paradox he presses is that Hegel 'wasn't Hegelian enough' on capitalism, and that Marx is in a basic sense more idealist than Hegel. He closes by defending a return to Hegel against Marxist historical teleology, reading Hegel as 'dislocating teleology itself' so that freedom is redefined historically (e.g. by LGBTQ+) rather than approached, and endorses a Walter Benjamin pessimism: history left to itself drifts toward an apocalyptic endpoint, so we must act against it.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 16
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
Marx's theory that labor is the source of value, whose reduction of skilled to unskilled labor Žižek treats as a mechanistic 19th-century residue.
The 19th-century mechanistic-materialist logic (energy, entropy, mechanical repetition) Žižek sees inscribed in Marx and, more deeply, in capitalism itself.
Hegel's three estates (universal state functionaries, farmers, commerce/laborers), treated as one cohesive group and so missing the immanent antagonism of capitalism.
as “Hegel wasn't Hegelian enough”
His twist: Hegel failed at capitalism not because he was too idealist but because he wasn't dialectical enough to see labor-power become a commodity.
Hegel's sphere of market exchange between individuals, which he treats as collaboration on the market and so misses the immanent antagonism of labor becoming a commodity.
as “reflexivity”
The dialectical moment when a term turns back on itself, e.g. labor, the source of value, becoming itself a commodity on the market.
as “Hegelianizing the critique of political economy”
His characterization of Marx's Capital as applying Hegel's substance-becomes-subject logic to the movement of capital.
The Hegelian reflexive inversion Marx applies to money-as-commodity becoming capital as the active self-reproducing agent of production.
Not just wealth but the self-expanding, self-reproducing agent that, for Marx-Žižek, behaves like a Hegelian notion.
as “Hegelian notion”
The self-moving, self-reproducing, self-sublating logic Hegel attributes to Spirit/Notion, which Žižek finds instantiated in the movement of capital.
as “capital is structured as a Hegelian notion”
His thesis that capital self-moves, self-reproduces and self-sublates exactly like Hegel's Notion.
as “Marx is more idealist than Hegel”
His paradox: Marx's historical teleology toward communism out-idealizes Hegel, who forbids precisely such future-directed speculation.
His reading: Hegel's teleology doesn't plot simple progress but reflexively redefines its own notion as history develops.
Hegel's historical teleology, which Žižek argues dislocates itself rather than plotting simple progress toward a fixed goal.
His imperative: since history's spontaneous dynamic cannot be trusted, politics must act against it rather than rely on its progress.
His self-description: neither Hegel nor Marx, history left to its own dynamic tends toward an apocalyptic endpoint.
Stories he reaches for 3
Hegel's Eurocentric schema, Africa as zero, China where only one is free, Persia where some are free, Greece/Christianity where all are free but limited to the religious sphere, modern Western Europe where all are free, cited as the naïve teleology Žižek then retools into 'dislocated teleology'.
“Africa is zero level, they're not even purely human, humanity begins with China where only one is free”
Marx hand-waves that skilled labor reduces to unskilled 'by a well-known process' without ever specifying it, a piece of empty rhetoric that, per David Harvey's 'almost Freudian' analysis, signals a gap in the labor theory of value.
“So this is typical empty rhetoric. You don't have a good argument, so you say 'Oh, it's well-known'”
A chain of Hegelian claims that the world-spirit keeps moving west, from England/France/Germany to the US (New York, then St. Louis, then California), then to post-historical Japan (Kojève), and finally back to China, which Žižek cites only to reject as the false logic of teleology.
“since Hegel came a couple of decades earlier he thought England, France, Germany, that's it, the top. But then the spirit moved further west to United States.”
Works invoked 2
Capital book
Marx's work, read as the site where Marx Hegelianizes political economy, describing the passage from money to capital in Hegelian terms of substance becoming subject.
Hegel's preface/introduction, cited for the claim that philosophy can grasp a social formation only once it has peaked and begun to decay, and so cannot speculate about the future, the prohibition Žižek turns against Marx's teleology.
People invoked 10
Robert Pippin positive
Named alongside Brandom as a Hegelian Žižek generally disagrees with but who agrees with him on the Marx-is-more-idealist-than-Hegel thesis.
Robert Brandom positive
Named alongside Pippin as a Hegelian Žižek generally disagrees with but who concurs with him on the Marx-is-more-idealist-than-Hegel point.
Cited alongside Smith as a classical economist whose picture of civil society Hegel inherited, missing the antagonism of labor-becoming-commodity.
Mentioned in passing as the kind of thinker who would treat California as the ultimate Hegelian/postmodern place, part of the teleology chain he rejects.
David Harvey positive
Calls him 'our friend' and 'maybe the greatest Marxist in economic matters today'; cites Harvey's 'almost Freudian' analysis of Marx's 'by a well-known process' as empty rhetoric exposing a gap in the labor theory of value.
Cited for the 1960s proposal that Japan, after its economic rise, is a truly post-historical society of ritual and manners, one link in the chain of 'spirit moves west' claims Žižek rejects.
Walter Benjamin positive
Žižek self-identifies as 'more of a Walter Benjamin pessimist', neither Hegel nor Marx, holding that history left to itself approaches an apocalyptic endpoint and that we must act against it.
Karl Marx positive
Praises Marx's 'beautiful' discovery in Capital that capital is structured as a Hegelian notion (substance becomes subject), but criticizes Marx's mechanistic reductionism in the labor theory of value and rejects the 'too simplistic Marxist belief in historical teleology'.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel positive
The central reference; Žižek wants to 'return to Hegel' against crude Marxist inversions. Reads Hegel's teleology as dislocating teleology itself and as prohibiting future speculation. Notes Hegel's Eurocentric limits but defends the core dialectic and treats him as more supple than the standard 'idealist' caricature.
Mentioned as one of the political economists Hegel was reading while conceiving civil society as market collaboration between individuals.
What it argues
Hegel-Marx relationship and reversing the standard inversion storyMarx's mechanistic reductionism and the labor theory of valueCapital as a self-reproducing Hegelian notion (substance becomes subject)Hegel 'wasn't Hegelian enough' when confronting capitalismMarx as more idealist than Hegel on historical teleologyHegel dislocates teleology itself — freedom redefined, not approachedWalter Benjamin pessimism versus Marxist historical teleology
Dialectical moves 5
“The problem of Hegel was that, confronted with capitalism at its elementary stage, he wasn't Hegelian enough.”
Hegel's failure on capitalism is a deficit of dialectic, not an excess of idealism; the antidote is more Hegel, not less.
“Marx is in some basic sense more idealist than Hegel.”
Because Marx locates a teleological movement of history toward communism, he out-idealizes the very Hegel he claims to invert.
“Even if you as a simple capitalist are a vulgar materialist, in your practice you are an idealist, because the economy behaves in a Hegelian way.”
The brute materialist motives of the capitalist are belied by the idealist (Hegelian) logic of the system he enacts.
“Hegel dislocates teleology itself.”
Hegel's teleology is not simple progress toward a fixed goal but a reflexive redescription in which the notion itself shifts.
“We are now not more free than ancient Greeks. We understand freedom in a different way.”
Historical progress redefines the very content of freedom rather than bringing us closer to a fixed ideal.
Claims 14
asserts
Marx's labor theory of value inherits a 19th-century mechanistic notion of constant energy, which is why skilled labor is hand-waved into unskilled labor by a 'well-known process'.Marx's mechanistic reductionism
rejects
Marx's 'by a well-known process' reduction of skilled to unskilled labor is empty rhetoric covering a missing argument (a point he credits to David Harvey).Marx's labor reduction
asserts
The problem with Hegel on capitalism is that he wasn't Hegelian enough: he missed the most dialectical moment, labor-power itself becoming a commodity.Hegel on capitalism
asserts
What Marx did in Capital was Hegelianize the critique of political economy, describing the passage from money to capital in Hegelian terms of substance becoming subject.Marx's method in Capital
asserts
Capital behaves like a Hegelian notion: its goal is not satisfying needs or even enriching the rich, but the expanded self-reproduction of capital itself.the logic of capital
reframes
Even a vulgar materialist capitalist who wants only profit is, in his practice, an idealist, because the economy he participates in behaves in a Hegelian way.the materialist/idealist split
asserts
Marx is in a basic sense more idealist than Hegel, because Marx projects a teleological movement of history toward communism that Hegel would have prohibited.Marx versus Hegel on idealism
asserts
Hegel explicitly prohibits teleological speculation about the future — philosophy can only grasp a social formation once it has peaked and begun to decay.Hegel's teleology
reframes
Hegel's teleology is not simple progress toward a goal but dislocates itself: the very notion (freedom, justice, equality) is redefined in the course of history.Hegel's teleology
reframes
Historical progress does not bring us closer to a fixed idea of freedom; it redefines the content of freedom itself, as the emergence of LGBTQ+ struggles shows.historical progress and freedom
asserts
Hegel would not have dismissed LGBTQ+ issues as irrelevant but would have read them as a new sphere of egalitarian freedom, which already points toward socialism.LGBTQ+ and historical progress
reframes
The break of socialism from classical liberalism is not totalitarian organization of the economy but the demand that actual equality requires certain economic and social conditions (healthcare, education).socialism versus liberalism
rejects
We should renounce the simplistic Marxist belief in historical teleology, that we are necessarily approaching socialism or communism.Marxist historical teleology
asserts
History left to its own dynamic approaches an apocalyptic endpoint, so we can no longer trust history and must act against it.historical trajectory / Walter Benjamin pessimism
Quotes 8
“the problem of Hegel was that confronted capitalism at the very elementary stage still he wasn't Hegelian enough.”Slavoj Žižek · Hegel wasn't Hegelian enough on capitalism
“What Marx did in Capital was Hegelianizing the critique of political economy.”Slavoj Žižek · Marx Hegelianizes political economy
“Marx is in some basic sense more idealist than Hegel.”Slavoj Žižek · the Marx-more-idealist-than-Hegel paradox
“capital is structured as a Hegelian notion.”Slavoj Žižek · capital as Hegelian notion
“he dislocates teleology itself.”Slavoj Žižek · Hegel dislocates teleology
“We are now not more free than ancient Greeks. We understand freedom in a different way.”Slavoj Žižek · freedom redefined, not approached
“even if you as a simple capitalist or whatever are a vulgar materialist you want only profit, pleasures, whatever, in your practice you are idealist in the sense that economy in which you participate, collaborate, behaves in a Hegelian way.”Slavoj Žižek · the vulgar materialist is an idealist in practice
“history left to itself to its own dynamic is approaching some apocalyptic endpoint and precisely we no longer can afford to trust history we have to act against.”Slavoj Žižek · Walter Benjamin pessimism: act against history
Transcript 9 turns
unknown
I was hoping that you could clear clear something up that I've never completely understood about your position, which I I think the way to think about it is this, right? So the sort of usual story people tell about Hegelianism and about Marxism is that Hegel has this idealist theory of history, he thinks that, you know, history is like the coming into itself of the world spirit so there there's non-material factors that's driving everything forward, and then Marx sets Hegel, you know, turns Hegel upside down, turns him upright, something like that, by taking retaining the the structure of Hegel's ideas but but doing a materialist version of it, and I've heard you say things over the years like you want to set back, you know, you want to turn Hegel around again or, you know, you want to, you know, reverse that in some way or you want to complicate that in some way, and I have to admit I've I've never been entirely clear on how that position works, so if that's not I mean I I understand I'm asking you a giant question, you know, you've written, you know, several books about this stuff, but if if that's not too too general I was wondering if you could clarify what your position is on that. I am grateful for
I was hoping that you could clear clear something up that I've never completely understood about your position, which I I think the way to think about it is this, right? So the sort of usual story people tell about Hegelianism and about Marxism is that Hegel has this idealist theory of history, he thinks that, you know, history is like the coming into itself of the world spirit so there there's non-material factors that's driving everything forward, and then Marx sets Hegel, you know, turns Hegel upside down, turns him upright, something like that, by taking retaining the the structure of Hegel's ideas but but doing a materialist version of it, and I've heard you say things over the years like you want to set back, you know, you want to turn Hegel around again or, you know, you want to, you know, reverse that in some way or you want to complicate that in some way, and I have to admit I've I've never been entirely clear on how that position works, so if that's not I mean I I understand I'm asking you a giant question, you know, you've written, you know, several books about this stuff, but if if that's not too too general I was wondering if you could clarify what your position is on that. I am grateful for
Slavoj Žižek
this question and sorry, you know that the only way I recognize somebody as a friend is to make a bad taste jokes or comparisons comparing them with. So you remind me of sorry, I know you're not this, stupid Hollywood producers who I I was told I read in old books on Hollywood when I was younger, you know, a guy came to them with "I have a wonderful scenario, blah blah," and they tell them "Give me just a punchline, two three sentences, I cannot grasp more," you know, like... Yeah, yeah, give me the give me the elevator pitch for for
this question and sorry, you know that the only way I recognize somebody as a friend is to make a bad taste jokes or comparisons comparing them with. So you remind me of sorry, I know you're not this, stupid Hollywood producers who I I was told I read in old books on Hollywood when I was younger, you know, a guy came to them with "I have a wonderful scenario, blah blah," and they tell them "Give me just a punchline, two three sentences, I cannot grasp more," you know, like... Yeah, yeah, give me the give me the elevator pitch for for
unknown
your stupid... To give you the
your stupid... To give you the
Slavoj Žižek
stupid Hollywood producer... Yeah, yeah, exactly, give me that
stupid Hollywood producer... Yeah, yeah, exactly, give me that
unknown
just just long enough for an elevator ride, give give me that much of your of your view on this subject you've spent all this most time
just just long enough for an elevator ride, give give me that much of your of your view on this subject you've spent all this most time
Slavoj Žižek
talking about, yeah. Yeah. First of course Hegel's at least historical limits are clear, and I emphasize this. First, something happened in the 19th century, not so much this vulgar materialism, science and so on, but in sciences a certain logic of, let's call it mechanic determinism, and I'm talking here even about purely scientific notions like, you know, entropy or or or energy, how it this idea of mechanized energy in the sense that it goes on just on pure mechanical repetition, all that stuff which characterize scientific materialism. And I'm not mocking it, it has its greatness. This was the science of the big science, natural science of the 19th century. Hegel was out of this. And as some guys, very intelligent readers of Marx pointed out, the even when Marx is problematic today, for example in his so-called labor theory of value, as that I buy, but especially his how should I call it mechanicist reductionism where Marx advocates the position that higher complex labor of an engineer or whatever is simply a multiplication of simple elementary level. At the low low level elementary value of labor is measured by the time you spend on it. But okay, what if if you get a highly educated guy who does the plan for your machine, blah blah blah, obviously at least in some naive sense his work produces more contributes more to the value. Marx's answer is this reduction in typical 19th century style, you know that you just have to multiply it.
talking about, yeah. Yeah. First of course Hegel's at least historical limits are clear, and I emphasize this. First, something happened in the 19th century, not so much this vulgar materialism, science and so on, but in sciences a certain logic of, let's call it mechanic determinism, and I'm talking here even about purely scientific notions like, you know, entropy or or or energy, how it this idea of mechanized energy in the sense that it goes on just on pure mechanical repetition, all that stuff which characterize scientific materialism. And I'm not mocking it, it has its greatness. This was the science of the big science, natural science of the 19th century. Hegel was out of this. And as some guys, very intelligent readers of Marx pointed out, the even when Marx is problematic today, for example in his so-called labor theory of value, as that I buy, but especially his how should I call it mechanicist reductionism where Marx advocates the position that higher complex labor of an engineer or whatever is simply a multiplication of simple elementary level. At the low low level elementary value of labor is measured by the time you spend on it. But okay, what if if you get a highly educated guy who does the plan for your machine, blah blah blah, obviously at least in some naive sense his work produces more contributes more to the value. Marx's answer is this reduction in typical 19th century style, you know that you just have to multiply it.
unknown
Let's say one hour of... Yeah, Marx says something in Capital like the uh that skilled labor is you know skilled labor is multiplied can be reduced to unskilled labor by he uses some strange phrase like by a well-known process and then he never says
Let's say one hour of... Yeah, Marx says something in Capital like the uh that skilled labor is you know skilled labor is multiplied can be reduced to unskilled labor by he uses some strange phrase like by a well-known process and then he never says
Slavoj Žižek
what the well-known process is. Yeah, exactly. I wouldn't about it, you know, a great Marxist, maybe the greatest in economic matters today, our friend I hope I can say David Harvey, no? I hope you took this remark from him because David Harvey does a wonderful, almost Freudian analysis here. Because Marx uses the term, as you said, "by a well-known process," it's obvious or what, and Harvey asks, "Sorry, in what sense well-known? Who did at any point not only develop this but even mention it, you know?" So this is typical empty rhetoric. You don't have a good argument, so you say "Oh, it's well-known" and so on, no? But I think the origin of this is Marx's reliance on the notion of energy, constant energy, which is again a typical product of post-Hegelian mechanical materialism. So but here I don't mean this as a criticism of Marx. On the contrary, I think that this mechanic logic is inscribed into capitalism itself. This brings me to the second point, and I elaborate this paradox, I forgot in which one of my books where I deal with this Marx-Hegel topic, that the most intelligent, I found it elsewhere, it's not mine, argument for a moderate critique of of Marx and Hegel is that the problem with Hegel is that because of, but maybe it's more obvious social limitation of his time, Hegel was not Hegelian enough when dealing with capitalist production. Hegel if you read him carefully he differentiates between three Stände, estates. The this allgemeine, universal estate, state functionaries and so on, then then farmers, and in between commerce laborers and so on. But they are all one and the same big group. The idea of an immanent antagonism here is foreign to Hegel, which is why in all the dynamics that Hegel saw very well, Hegel as we know was reading Adam Smith and so on, all of them, even Ricardo, Hegel still conceives this civil society as the sphere of economy at the level of collaboration between individuals on the market. I produce something, you produce something else, we exchange it, okay, one gets richer than the other. But this crucial dialectical idea of of working force itself becoming one of the commodities. Hegel should have seen this because this is precisely the the most dialectical moment of reflexivity where let us say, I will be fair towards you, I produce something, you produce something, but then you get wealthier so that instead of buying things from me because I screwed it up, now I'm giving you a standard bourgeois version, because of working well blah blah I screwed it up with my laziness, you worked hardly so you no longer buy things for me, you buy me, me, not as a slave but my labor force. You labor power. Precisely definition. Capitalism emerges when the source of value, labor, becomes another commodity on the market. This Hegel didn't see. And we go on, so that's a beautiful paradox. This I think I invented it and I'm a very little proud of it, that the problem of Hegel was that confronted capitalism at the very elementary stage still he wasn't Hegelian enough. What Marx did in Capital was Hegelianizing the critique of political economy. When Marx describes the the classical example, the passage from from money as commodity to capital. He puts it in purely Hegelian terms of how substance becomes subject. Money in its pre-capitalist mode is a neutral means of exchange. We use it to exchange to satisfy the objects to satisfy commodities to satisfy our needs and so on and so on. But what happens in capitalism is that capital becomes the active agent. The goal of the production is not satisfying our needs, not even rich people making them richer, it is simply the expanded self-reproduction of capital itself. And again Marx literally describes this in Hegelian terms, which is why as I don't agree with them some new breed of scholars who deal with Marx and Hegel point out that early Marx still thought Hegel blah blah idealist speculation and so on. But the big breakthrough of Marx who was again in until let's say early 1950s mostly mocking making fun of Hegel as the not stupid but an idealist who is confusing things blah blah that Marx then discovered but my God there is a domain which in our lowest lowest in the sense the most brutal material reality which behaves exactly in the way Hegelian spirit or Hegelian notion behaves in the sense of of self-movement, self-reproduction, self-sublation of and this is the movement of capital. So that's the beauty of Marx then he went on but his basic discovery is that capital is structured as a Hegelian notion. There is a truth even if you as a simple capitalist or whatever are a vulgar materialist you want only profit, pleasures, whatever, in your practice you are idealist in the sense that economy in which you participate, collaborate, behaves in a Hegelian way. So this is my basic position. I'm not simply saying let's go back from Marx to Hegel. But so this is one aspect. The other aspect connected with it is that now comes the big shock I will be very short here. And I'm here not alone. There are many Hegelians with whom I don't agree from Robert Brandom to Pippin and so on who agree here with me. Now I will put the paradox at its purest, you must know it. Marx is in some basic sense more idealist than Hegel. In what sense? Yes, Hegel describes history in a very teleological way. It's he even has this vulgar evolutionism, you know like it began for Hegel he's here a typical Eurocentric racist, Africa is zero level, they're not even purely human, humanity begins with China where only one is free, or India then in Persia, Manichaeism and so on, some are free, and in Ancient Greece with Christianity all are free but this is limited to religious sphere and in modern Western Europe all are free. Do you know what is happening now? Did we already talk about this? I like this idea although I think it's a little bit more complicated because you know who were, I think we already talked about it, I'm sorry if I repeat myself, you know who were the first American Hegelians? St. Louis School. A couple of German high school professors from Germany who even established the first Hegelian journal there in St. Louis around They tried to think further than Hegel. They said since Hegel came a couple of decades earlier he thought England, France, Germany, that's it, the top. But then the spirit moved further west to United States. First it was the primitive level New York and then for them it was St. Louis. And their end was a total historical accident that they detected the right movement but Chicago took over St. Louis, you know. And then do you know that you have then some Californian Hegelians who made a step further and said no you know when now California is kind of a losing value it's no longer such an ideal of postmodern society they said no let's go to the end it's western of the United States that's the top true postmodern society like if Baudrillard were to say the ultimate Hegelian place is California but then already in the 60s it was Kojève who proposed as an ideal after its economic rise in 1960s Japan that Japan is a truly post-historical society where you know it's no longer even obsession with economic wealth it's more this enjoying everyday rituals nice manners and so on. And then I love them there are some of my friends in China today they said no to be truly Hegelian you have to make a full circle we are back to China where it all began that only this so why I mention this sorry for the loss of time because of a very precise reason. Because I think this entire logic is false. Yes, Hegel proposes a teleological model but he makes it very clear that this model is not simply universal. This is how things appear to us from our standpoint. Hegel would have totally prohibited, not would have he does prohibit what Marx does any teleological speculations about the future. You remember the lines that I always quote from Hegel's introduction or forward I always forget to Philosophy of Right where he said a science, philosophical science, can only grasp a social formation in so far as this formation has already reached its its peak and began to decay and we cannot go into future. So this idea to see yourself as a moment in the process towards a higher level the process which is still ongoing this is for Hegel too much idealism. Hegel would have said precisely Marx thinks that he can locate ourselves in a teleological line moving not with necessity it's open to catastrophe but nonetheless towards socialism communism and so on. So I think that this is where we need to return to Hegel. He is he is he is he is teleologist but he now I will use a very precise term he dislocates teleology itself. This would be a proper Hegelian way to say it and Marx would agree with him here. It's not just that history progresses in ancient China or this primitive so-called primitive primitive oriental absolutist country only one was free then a couple of people are free then now formally of course all are free and so on and so on. No, Hegel would have put it in a different way. You cannot say that in historical progress we are more and more approaching a certain notion. No, it's that this notion itself gets redefined. And I think precisely that's why Hegel would not have dismissed all these issues of LGBTQ+ and so on as irrelevant. He would have said you see that's historical progress where we are not getting, it may appear, approaching a more just egalitarian society, but the very content of freedom, justice, equality is changing historically. If you take into account LGBTQ+ and so on a whole new sphere of egalitarian freedom emerges and here already we get socialism because again the break of socialism from classical liberalism is not oh totalitarian organization of economy. It's yes we are for equality but to be actually equal certain economic and social conditions must be met. We know today what they are free or accessible to all healthcare, education, and all that. So you see this is what Hegel means when he says that with historical development the notion itself is caught into this development. We are now not more free than ancient Greeks. We understand freedom in a different way. So here I think Hegel is to be reactualized. I think we have to renounce this too simplistic maybe Marxist belief in historical teleology that we are approaching and so on I don't know I I am more of a Walter Benjamin pessimist which is neither Hegel nor Marx that if anything the spontaneous spontaneous not in the sense of mechanic but in the sense of history our history left to itself to its own dynamic is approaching some apocalyptic endpoint and precisely we no longer can afford to trust history we have to act against. You've been watching free public content from Give Them An Argument. To access every single episode of the show, the big show on Monday nights, all of the streams, all of the debate breakdowns, all of the patron-exclusive post-games on Monday nights, all of the
what the well-known process is. Yeah, exactly. I wouldn't about it, you know, a great Marxist, maybe the greatest in economic matters today, our friend I hope I can say David Harvey, no? I hope you took this remark from him because David Harvey does a wonderful, almost Freudian analysis here. Because Marx uses the term, as you said, "by a well-known process," it's obvious or what, and Harvey asks, "Sorry, in what sense well-known? Who did at any point not only develop this but even mention it, you know?" So this is typical empty rhetoric. You don't have a good argument, so you say "Oh, it's well-known" and so on, no? But I think the origin of this is Marx's reliance on the notion of energy, constant energy, which is again a typical product of post-Hegelian mechanical materialism. So but here I don't mean this as a criticism of Marx. On the contrary, I think that this mechanic logic is inscribed into capitalism itself. This brings me to the second point, and I elaborate this paradox, I forgot in which one of my books where I deal with this Marx-Hegel topic, that the most intelligent, I found it elsewhere, it's not mine, argument for a moderate critique of of Marx and Hegel is that the problem with Hegel is that because of, but maybe it's more obvious social limitation of his time, Hegel was not Hegelian enough when dealing with capitalist production. Hegel if you read him carefully he differentiates between three Stände, estates. The this allgemeine, universal estate, state functionaries and so on, then then farmers, and in between commerce laborers and so on. But they are all one and the same big group. The idea of an immanent antagonism here is foreign to Hegel, which is why in all the dynamics that Hegel saw very well, Hegel as we know was reading Adam Smith and so on, all of them, even Ricardo, Hegel still conceives this civil society as the sphere of economy at the level of collaboration between individuals on the market. I produce something, you produce something else, we exchange it, okay, one gets richer than the other. But this crucial dialectical idea of of working force itself becoming one of the commodities. Hegel should have seen this because this is precisely the the most dialectical moment of reflexivity where let us say, I will be fair towards you, I produce something, you produce something, but then you get wealthier so that instead of buying things from me because I screwed it up, now I'm giving you a standard bourgeois version, because of working well blah blah I screwed it up with my laziness, you worked hardly so you no longer buy things for me, you buy me, me, not as a slave but my labor force. You labor power. Precisely definition. Capitalism emerges when the source of value, labor, becomes another commodity on the market. This Hegel didn't see. And we go on, so that's a beautiful paradox. This I think I invented it and I'm a very little proud of it, that the problem of Hegel was that confronted capitalism at the very elementary stage still he wasn't Hegelian enough. What Marx did in Capital was Hegelianizing the critique of political economy. When Marx describes the the classical example, the passage from from money as commodity to capital. He puts it in purely Hegelian terms of how substance becomes subject. Money in its pre-capitalist mode is a neutral means of exchange. We use it to exchange to satisfy the objects to satisfy commodities to satisfy our needs and so on and so on. But what happens in capitalism is that capital becomes the active agent. The goal of the production is not satisfying our needs, not even rich people making them richer, it is simply the expanded self-reproduction of capital itself. And again Marx literally describes this in Hegelian terms, which is why as I don't agree with them some new breed of scholars who deal with Marx and Hegel point out that early Marx still thought Hegel blah blah idealist speculation and so on. But the big breakthrough of Marx who was again in until let's say early 1950s mostly mocking making fun of Hegel as the not stupid but an idealist who is confusing things blah blah that Marx then discovered but my God there is a domain which in our lowest lowest in the sense the most brutal material reality which behaves exactly in the way Hegelian spirit or Hegelian notion behaves in the sense of of self-movement, self-reproduction, self-sublation of and this is the movement of capital. So that's the beauty of Marx then he went on but his basic discovery is that capital is structured as a Hegelian notion. There is a truth even if you as a simple capitalist or whatever are a vulgar materialist you want only profit, pleasures, whatever, in your practice you are idealist in the sense that economy in which you participate, collaborate, behaves in a Hegelian way. So this is my basic position. I'm not simply saying let's go back from Marx to Hegel. But so this is one aspect. The other aspect connected with it is that now comes the big shock I will be very short here. And I'm here not alone. There are many Hegelians with whom I don't agree from Robert Brandom to Pippin and so on who agree here with me. Now I will put the paradox at its purest, you must know it. Marx is in some basic sense more idealist than Hegel. In what sense? Yes, Hegel describes history in a very teleological way. It's he even has this vulgar evolutionism, you know like it began for Hegel he's here a typical Eurocentric racist, Africa is zero level, they're not even purely human, humanity begins with China where only one is free, or India then in Persia, Manichaeism and so on, some are free, and in Ancient Greece with Christianity all are free but this is limited to religious sphere and in modern Western Europe all are free. Do you know what is happening now? Did we already talk about this? I like this idea although I think it's a little bit more complicated because you know who were, I think we already talked about it, I'm sorry if I repeat myself, you know who were the first American Hegelians? St. Louis School. A couple of German high school professors from Germany who even established the first Hegelian journal there in St. Louis around They tried to think further than Hegel. They said since Hegel came a couple of decades earlier he thought England, France, Germany, that's it, the top. But then the spirit moved further west to United States. First it was the primitive level New York and then for them it was St. Louis. And their end was a total historical accident that they detected the right movement but Chicago took over St. Louis, you know. And then do you know that you have then some Californian Hegelians who made a step further and said no you know when now California is kind of a losing value it's no longer such an ideal of postmodern society they said no let's go to the end it's western of the United States that's the top true postmodern society like if Baudrillard were to say the ultimate Hegelian place is California but then already in the 60s it was Kojève who proposed as an ideal after its economic rise in 1960s Japan that Japan is a truly post-historical society where you know it's no longer even obsession with economic wealth it's more this enjoying everyday rituals nice manners and so on. And then I love them there are some of my friends in China today they said no to be truly Hegelian you have to make a full circle we are back to China where it all began that only this so why I mention this sorry for the loss of time because of a very precise reason. Because I think this entire logic is false. Yes, Hegel proposes a teleological model but he makes it very clear that this model is not simply universal. This is how things appear to us from our standpoint. Hegel would have totally prohibited, not would have he does prohibit what Marx does any teleological speculations about the future. You remember the lines that I always quote from Hegel's introduction or forward I always forget to Philosophy of Right where he said a science, philosophical science, can only grasp a social formation in so far as this formation has already reached its its peak and began to decay and we cannot go into future. So this idea to see yourself as a moment in the process towards a higher level the process which is still ongoing this is for Hegel too much idealism. Hegel would have said precisely Marx thinks that he can locate ourselves in a teleological line moving not with necessity it's open to catastrophe but nonetheless towards socialism communism and so on. So I think that this is where we need to return to Hegel. He is he is he is he is teleologist but he now I will use a very precise term he dislocates teleology itself. This would be a proper Hegelian way to say it and Marx would agree with him here. It's not just that history progresses in ancient China or this primitive so-called primitive primitive oriental absolutist country only one was free then a couple of people are free then now formally of course all are free and so on and so on. No, Hegel would have put it in a different way. You cannot say that in historical progress we are more and more approaching a certain notion. No, it's that this notion itself gets redefined. And I think precisely that's why Hegel would not have dismissed all these issues of LGBTQ+ and so on as irrelevant. He would have said you see that's historical progress where we are not getting, it may appear, approaching a more just egalitarian society, but the very content of freedom, justice, equality is changing historically. If you take into account LGBTQ+ and so on a whole new sphere of egalitarian freedom emerges and here already we get socialism because again the break of socialism from classical liberalism is not oh totalitarian organization of economy. It's yes we are for equality but to be actually equal certain economic and social conditions must be met. We know today what they are free or accessible to all healthcare, education, and all that. So you see this is what Hegel means when he says that with historical development the notion itself is caught into this development. We are now not more free than ancient Greeks. We understand freedom in a different way. So here I think Hegel is to be reactualized. I think we have to renounce this too simplistic maybe Marxist belief in historical teleology that we are approaching and so on I don't know I I am more of a Walter Benjamin pessimist which is neither Hegel nor Marx that if anything the spontaneous spontaneous not in the sense of mechanic but in the sense of history our history left to itself to its own dynamic is approaching some apocalyptic endpoint and precisely we no longer can afford to trust history we have to act against. You've been watching free public content from Give Them An Argument. To access every single episode of the show, the big show on Monday nights, all of the streams, all of the debate breakdowns, all of the patron-exclusive post-games on Monday nights, all of the
unknown
patron-exclusive bonus episodes every week, and much more, go to patreon.com/benburgis. I cannot resist ending this with: don't be foolish.
patron-exclusive bonus episodes every week, and much more, go to patreon.com/benburgis. I cannot resist ending this with: don't be foolish.