When he arrives at the door to Marx's pantheon we see that, with the significant yet largely overlooked example of Spinoza, most thinkers-and especially Western ones-are opposed to essential aspects of democracy. In Marx and the Future of the Human Cyril Smith explains that Karl Marx, more than any other thinker, is misrepresented by what has come to be understood as 'Marxism.
Marx, however, speaks about a conception of human life that was absent during his lifetime and remains absent today. Marx sought 'the alteration of humans on a mass scale:' economics, politics, daily lived-life, and spiritual life.
- Fragile and Distant Suns: A Poul Anderson Collection?
- Shop now and earn 2 points per $1.
- What is Kobo Super Points?.
- New passions.
Someone coming to Marx for the first time as well as the seasoned scholar can read this book. Marx and the Future of the Human is a book rife with thoughtful and creative connections written by someone who has spent most of his life close to the spirit of Karl Marx's thought.
Get this edition
Wordery is one of the UK's largest online booksellers. With millions of satisfied customers who enjoy low prices on a huge range of books, we offer a reliable and trusted service and consistently receive excellent feedback.
We offer a huge range of over 8 million books; bestsellers, children's books, cheap paperbacks, baby books, special edition hardbacks, and textbooks. All our books are dispatched from the UK.https://lensicobuhop.tk
Raya Dunayevskaya - Wikiwand
Philosophy is different from theory as it is traditionally understood Philosophy subjects everything to self-examination, including its own premises—not for the sake of simply tearing things down that would be mere sophistry! But on this sad occasion we should give the last word to Cyril Smith. We can do no better in celebrating his life, and recognizing that our differences with him concerned key issues for future development of revolutionary thought, than republishing below his article on Raya Dunayevskaya from July, It is nearly half a century since I first saw some of the writings of Raya Dunayevskaya.
Alas, I was too narrowminded then to see what she was trying to do. Only recently have I started to study her work seriously and come to appreciate her pioneering work in uncovering Marx's humanism and investigating its relationship to Hegel's philosophy. However, as is the fate of all pioneers, history unfolds and overtakes even the most farsighted of thinkers. So I offer some critical comments, occasioned by the lecture on Hegel's Smaller LOGIC which you have recently published, only with the greatest respect. I believe that, during the quarter of a century which still remained to her after that lecture, Raya herself began to move in some of the directions I point to here.
I contend that it is necessary for us to continue this process, rather than leave the subject where she left it at the time of her death.
Archives of Marxist-Humanism
Like many of her generation and ours, Raya Dunayevskaya started with Lenin's study of Hegel in With the indispensable help of his rough notes and of Marx's Manuscripts—not, of course, available to Lenin—she began her own independent study of Hegel. Only later did she begin to see the severe limitations of Lenin's struggle to break out of the falsifications of Marx's ideas in the Second International.
Hegel is not describing a special "method," which can be detached from his notions of reality, or his conception of history and the state. Rather, he is presenting the essential heart of the relations of bourgeois society and the forms of consciousness which reflect these relations.
Karl Marx and the Future of the Human
No mere philosophy can do more. What Marx accomplished went beyond any philosophy.
That is why I cannot accept Raya's admonition, following Lenin, that we must "constantly deepen" Hegel's content, "through a materialistic, historical 'translation'. Here Marx shows that Hegel stays within the confines of philosophy, and thus remains at home within what he called "estrangement. In the first of his Theses on Feuerbach , Marx praises idealism - here that means Hegel - for "abstractly setting forth the active side," and condemns materialism.
However, he also says that idealism "does not know real, sensuous activity," only spiritual, mental activity. No philosophy, whether "materialist" or "idealist," could ever grasp "the significance of "revolutionary," of "practical critical" activity.
Marx's two-sided attitude to Hegel leads me to be cautious about Dunayevskaya's statement about the last section of the LOGIC, which she thinks is "the philosophical framework which most applies to our own age. We must take him as a whole. Remember that Hegel clearly situates his massive system of thought within the historical context of his own time and place, in the aftermath of the French revolution in backward Germany.
Marx actually made this book the startingpoint for his lifelong struggle with Hegel, when he wrote his "Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of the State. Marx and Engels never went along with it.