Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:41:17.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Methodology in Karl Marx

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

Joseph O'Malley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The development of Marx's mature social and political theory may be traced back in his writings to his political journalism of 1842–43, where a germinal doctrine on man's social nature supports a normative concept of the nature and function of political institutions. But his developing theory first achieved a measure of systematic rigor in his Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right. This work, Marx's earliest major theoretical writing, has lately received increased attention from scholars. My purpose here is to complement existing studies by highlighting certain methodological features of the work, specifically the way in which Marx combined elements of philosophical and political criticism in a systematic effort to develop his own political theory in opposition to the method and institutional conclusions of Hegel.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , April 1970 , pp. 219 - 230
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

* This essay was written in the course of preparing a translation, with introduction, of Marx's, Kritik (1843)Google Scholar, which Cambridge University Press will publish late in 1970.

1 For example, Avineri, Shlomo, The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx (Cambridge, 1968), pp. 8–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dupré, Louis, The Philosophical Foundations of Marxism (New York, 1966), pp. 87–108Google Scholar; Barion, Jakob, Hegel und die marxistische Staatslehre (Bonn, 1963), pp. 78–141Google Scholar.

2 Subsequent references are to the edition in Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels/ Werke (hereafter Werke) (Berlin, 1964) I, 203–333Google Scholar. On the date of composition, see especially Andréas, Bert, “Marx et Engels et la gauche hégélienne,” Annali, Instituto Giangiacomo Feltrinelli (Milan), VII (1965), 355Google Scholar, 356 note 1; also Rjazanov's, remarks in MEGA I, 1/1, pp. LXXI–LXXV, 402Google Scholar; and MEGA I, 1/2, pp. XXIV–XXX. On the discovery of the manuscript, see Rjazanov's, “Neueste Mitteilungen über den literarischen Nachlass von Karl Marx und Friedrich Engels” (German transl. by Grünberg, Carl), Archiv für die Geschichte des Sozialismus und der Arbeiterbewegung, XI (1925), 385–400Google Scholar, especially 391–392.

3 Marx's reference to the Critique are in his letter to Ruge, Arnold (03 5, 1842), Werke, XXVII, 397Google Scholar; his Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859), trans. Stone, N. I. (Chicago, 1904), pp. 10–11Google Scholar; and his Afterword to the 2nd German edition of Capital, I (1873), trans. Moore, S. & Aveling, E. (Chicago, 1906), p. 25Google Scholar.

4 See Jaeger, Hasso, “Savigny et Marx,” Archives de Philosophie du Droit, XII (1967), 65–89Google Scholar.

5 See, for example, MEGA I, 1/2, p. 280; MEGA I, 3, pp. 34, 151.

6 Ludwig Feuerbachs Sammtliche Werke (Leipzig, 1883) VII, 26–27Google Scholar, 48 ff.; The Essence of Christianity, transl. Eliot, G. (New York, 1957), pp. XI, 12Google Scholar ff. Gf. in the Critique, Werke I, 296.

7 “Vorläufige Thesen zur Reform der Philosophic,” in Ludwig Feuerbachs Sämmtliche Werke, II, 244–268; the text above, p. 246. The passage parallels exactly a conclusion in The Essence of Christianity, pp. 274–275: “We need only… invert the religious relations — regard that as an end which religion supposes to be a means — exalt that into the primary which in religion is subordinate, (and) at once we have destroyed the illusion, and the unclouded light of truth streams in upon us.”

8 “Vorläufige Thesen…,” p. 253.

9 Ibid., p. 267; cf. p. 244: “Spinoza is the true founder of modern speculative philosophy; Schelling is its reviver; Hegel is its perfecter.”

10 Ibid., p. 244. Cf. Feuerbach's Principles of the Philosophy of the Future, written later in 1843, where he characterized Hegel as “the German Proclus,” that is, the specifically modern Neoplatonic theologian; Principles…, trans. Vogel, Manfred (Indianapolis, 1966), p. 47Google Scholar.

11 As Marx put it in his 1844 Manuscripts (MEGA I, 3, p. 152): “Feuerbach's great achievement is (to prove) that philosophy is nothing more than religion brought to and developed in reflection, and thus is equally to be condemned as another form and mode of the alienation of man's nature.”

12 Hegel, G. W. F., Sāmmtliche Werke, Glockner, ed. (Stuttgart, 1959) XV, 37Google Scholar.

13 Hegel's Science of Logic, trans. Johnston, and Struthers, (London, 1961) II, 466–467Google Scholar.

14 Hegel's Philosophy of Right, trans. Knox, T. M. (Oxford, 1962), p. 2Google Scholar; cf. Knox's comments, ibid., pp. viii–ix, 298 note 4.

15 “Vorläufige Thesen…,” pp. 252–253.

16 Hegel, G. W. F., Sämmtliche Werkt, VII, 350Google Scholar.

17 “Vorläufige Thesen…,” p. 267.

18 Marx, to Ruge, (03 13, 1843), Werke, XXVII, 417Google Scholar.

19 Werke, I, 205–208. Here “allegory” means “ascribing to any empirical existent the meaning of actualized Idea”; ibid., 241.

20 Ibid., 207–216, 223–225, 263–264.

21 Ibid., 206, 241. Marx's comment is doubtless inspired by Feuerbach, (“Vorläufige Thesen…,” p. 254)Google Scholar: “That which is as it is —and thus the truth truly expressed — seems superficial, while that which is as it is not — and thus the truth untruly and pervertedly expressed — seems profound.” Cf. in The Holy Family Marx's, tongue-in-cheek explanation of “The Mystery of Speculative Construction”; Werke, II, 61–62Google Scholar; English in Easton, L. and Guddat, K., Writings of the Young Marx on Philosophy and Society (Garden City, 1967), pp. 371–373Google Scholar.

22 On the essentially uncritical character of speculative philosophy, with special reference to The Philosophy of Right, see Werke, I, 226, 240–241, 244, 263, 287; cf. Marx's, comments in The Holy Family, Werke, II, 63Google Scholar.

23 Werke, I, 209–220, 224 ff.

24 Ibid., 208–209, 211, 216, 217, 250, 267.

25 Ibid., 211–212, 218, 225–226. Marx, repeated the charge later, in The Holy Family, Werke, II, 63Google Scholar.

26 Werke, I, 243, 361 ff., 291 ff., 303–306, 329, 332 ff. Cf. the remarks of Hyppolite, Jean, “La conception hégélienne de l'État et sa critique par Karl Marx,” in Etudes sur Marx et Hegel (Paris, 1965), p. 120Google Scholar.

27 Werke, I, p. 296.

28 Cf. the remarks of Rjazanov, in his Introductionto MEGA I, 1/2, xxvffGoogle Scholar.

29 Details on the books and authors Marx, read are given in MEGA I, 1/2, 118–136Google Scholar. On the notebooks as constituting evidence for the 1843 date of composition of the Critique, see especially ibid., I, 1/1, lxxi–lxxv; and I, 1/2, xxiv–xxx.

30 Cf. Werke, I, 233–234, and 275–277, 283–287.

31 For example, ibid.,259, 276–277, 311 ff.

32 On universal suffrage, see especially Werke, I, 326–327; on the proletariat and the abolition of private property (the latter, especially, already implied in the Critique), see Marx's, two essays, “Zur Kritik der Hegelschen Rechtsphilosophie: Einleitung” and “Zur Judenfrage,” composed just after he finished the Critique and published in the Deutsch-französische Jahrbücher (02, 1844)Google Scholar; Werke, I, especially 354–356, 372–375, 390–391.