Abstract
Hegel and Marx did not just happen. Nor are they like Gilbert and Sullivan, Beaumont and Fletcher, or even Marx and Engels. They never met and they never corresponded (Hegel died when Marx was 13). Marx referred many times in his voluminous works to Hegel, but then he also referred to an enormous number of writers — an almost unbelievable number. If there were a citation count, it is possible that Hegel would win, at least amongst philosophers, though this would hardly do more than start a discussion on why this is important and what it is supposed to mean. If Marx is to be linked up (or married off?) philosophically, there are alternative candidates — Aristotle is one.1 But then it seems to me that Marx constantly draws on the early nineteenth-century remnants of medieval and early-modern ‘school philosophy’, deploying distinctions such as essence-appearance, motion-stasis, potential-actual, quantity- quality, and no doubt many others, without citing any particular author or source. I will be exploring these issues and others, in both philosophy and politics, as my aim is to stand back from the Hegel-Marx pairing as it has been transmitted to us, and to try to get it into a new perspective. I shall be arguing the following, hoping to clarify with complexity:
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
See S. Meikle, Essentialism in the Thought of Karl Marx (London: Duckworth, 1984).
I make and support this claim in T. Carver, Engels (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981)
G. A. Cohen, Karl Marx’s Theory of History: A Defence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975), pp. 1–27.
See W. J. Brazill, The Young Hegelians (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1970)
L. S. Stepelevich, ed., The Young Hegelians: An Anthology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983).
T. Carver, Marx and Engels: The Intellectual Relationship (Brighton: Wheat-sheaf, 1983), pp. 105–6.
K. Marx, Capital, Vol. 1, tr. B. Fowkes (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1986), pp. 102–3
G. W. F. Hegel, Philosophy of Right, ed. and tr. T. M. Knox (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965), pp. 12
J. Elster, Making Sense of Marx (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), p. 124.
J. M. E. MacTaggart, A Commentary on Hegel’s Logic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910), pp. 2–3.
K. Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, tr.M.Milligan and D.J. Struik, Collected Works, 3 (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1975), p. 330.
K. Marx and F. Engels, The Holy Family: Or Critique of Critical Critique, tr. R. Dixon and C. Dutt, Collected Works, 4 (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1975), p. 138.
G. S. Haight, George Eliot and John Chapman, 2nd edn (Hamden, Conn.: Archon, 1969), pp. 124
K. Marx, ‘Letter to Frederick Engels’, 28 October, 1852, Collected Works, 39 (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1983), p. 227.
K. Marx, Grundrisse (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1973), p. 266
T. Carver, ‘Marx, Engels and Dialectics’, Political Studies 28 (1980), pp. 353–63.
T. Carver, Marx’s Social Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982), passim.
J. Elster, Making Sense of Marx (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), pp. 37–48.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2000 Macmillan Press Ltd
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Carver, T. (2000). Hegel and Marx: Reflections on the Narrative. In: Burns, T., Fraser, I. (eds) The Hegel-Marx Connection. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230595934_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230595934_2
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-41246-4
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-59593-4
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)