Attention: Starting December 14, 2019 Yahoo Groups will no longer host user created content on its sites. New content can no longer be uploaded after October 28, 2019. Sending/Receiving email functionality is not going away, you can continue to communicate via any email client with your group members. Learn More
- Oct 20 2:00 PMJohn,I perceive an abstract portrait of Marx in this, when compared with Hegel.Marx did more than describe the transition from feudal economy to monetary economy -- he also prescribed a revolution of destruction against the global industrial bourgeoisie and the complete vindication of the global industrial proletariat.Actually, the prescription is the real essence of Marx's writings -- not the description which you portray. This is plain in all his works.In contrast with Hegel -- Hegel mainly described what was going on during his own times. Yes, there were revolutions for Free Republics (mainly bourgeois) and Hegel was clearly on the side of the Abolitionists against Slavery. Yet there is no preaching of revolution in Hegel.On the contrary -- if Hegel had lived long enough to deal with the bourgeois/proletarian dyad, I reckon that he would have treated it with Dialectical Logic, and not in the one-sided manner that Marx extolled. Instead of the total victory of the proletariat, I reckon that Hegel would have sought a SYNTHESIS of the THESIS and ANTITHESIS. I reckon, too, that Hegel would have found it -- had he lived.Well, Hegel did not live. Instead, the world got a repeat of ancient, one-sided Logic, and a century of Marxism.All best,--Paul
From: "jgbardis@... [hegel]" <hegel@yahoogroups.com>
To: hegel@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2018 9:32 AM
Subject: Re: [hegel] Some thoughts on Jean Wahl
What Marx was talking about was the transition from a so-called feudal economy to a money economy.Just by definition in a feudal economy there is no money--or money, at any rate, isn't used in every-day transactions. So agricultural workers didn't get paid with money. It would have been of no use to them, to begin with. And, secondly, agricultural work is seasonal, again just by definition. So if they got paid money, that would just be for a certain period of the year, and for the rest of the year they would just go hungry (or return to Mexico or something).A money economy requires, first of all, year round steady employment. So that would be work other than agricultural work.So Marx documented the transition from feudalism to a money economy in England during the industrial revolution. As such, the first volume of Capital is quite interesting. But obviously it isn't the last word on capitalism. It is just the first word.Thomas Hardy's novels also document this transition in England from a world based on agriculture to the modern world where, today, Great Britain imports 60% of its food mainly from the EU--thus they are soon looking at a significant increase in food prices there.But transitions are always difficult. We can think about the transition since the 1960s of women entering the work-place in America. This is, apparently, a struggle that is just beginning in Japan, so we are told.John - << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>