From Hegelian Idealism To Marxist Materialism: (A Critical Assessment of Connection and Contradiction)
From Hegelian Idealism To Marxist Materialism: (A Critical Assessment of Connection and Contradiction)
Abstract: This article deals with the journey of western dialectical debate from Hegel to Marx and other
Marxist critics. Hegelian idealist philosophy believes on the existence of idea which, according to Hegel, shapes
other worldly matters. Marxian materialist philosophy, on the other hand, believes on the power of materiality in
human life. For the study of connections and contradictions between them, an assessment on the views of
Hegelian Idealists and Marxist Materialists has been done from critical perspective. The study explores that the
two philosophers stand together on the views that conflict is the foundation for change in society, and historical
development of human civilization has gone through dialectical process. They view differently on the nature and
agents of conflict. Hegel believes upon the intellectual power of mind to bring change where as Marx believes
on the power of proletarians to subvert the existing bourgeois ideology with socialist ideology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Submission: 04-10-2019 Date of Acceptance: 21-10-2019
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. INTRODUCTION
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Karl Marx are the pioneers to open up the discourse of
dialecticism in western metaphysics. When Hegel died in 1831, Marx was just 13 years old. Marx studied the
philosophy of Hegel thoroughly and moved his journey from the weakness that he found in the theory of Hegel.
This critical study of Marx upon Hegel gave rise to Marxist theory which dominated the whole world in 20th
century.
The philosophy of Hegel is based on the proposition that reality can be attained through logical
reasoning. He advocates for rationality and reconciliation of contradictions to run society in smooth and
peaceful manner. Despite the attempt for reconciliation, Hegel acknowledges that ideas are naturally clashed by
other new conflicting ideas. This dialectic principle makes human society active and creative. The philosophy of
Marx, on contrary, is based on the proposition that social reality lies on materiality. The one who possesses
material power rules over society, and those who are powerless, struggle against the power. This is what Marx
calls class conflict. Class conflict, for Marx, is the main ground for social transformations.
There are some theoretical grounds that bind both Hegelian and Marxian philosophies together.
Perhaps there would not have been Marx if Hegel had not been born on this earth. Marx himself has
acknowledged the contribution of Hegel for propounding dialectical principle in historical development. Marx
started his philosophical journey from the ground of Hegel. But it was Marx who popularized Hegel with heavy
corrections in his philosophical standpoints. Other young Hegelians (Marxist scholars) have also credited Hegel
for his contribution. Georg Lukacs was much influenced by Hegelian concept of totality and harmony that
Lukacs has used in his theory of art and literature.
Hegelian philosophy provided ground for Marx and other Marxist thinkers to begin with the theory of
dialectics. Propounding the concept of thesis-antithesis-synthesis, Hegel established the law of social
transformation in which one established idea is countered by another new idea. This clash in human
consciousness paves way to new consciousness, i.e., synthesis. For Hegel transformation in society is
transformation in human consciousness. Karl Marx expresses his disbelief upon the claim of Hegel arguing that
transformation of consciousness is not possible unless there is transformation in materiality. It is power that
formulates consciousness, and that power comes from the possession of materiality. The two philosophers differ
from each other in determining the agents for change. Hegel believes that change in society occurs only with the
effort of educated and enlightened people. Marx, on the other hand, sympathizes the working class people, and
considers them to be the real agents for change.
society is the history of class conflict. Opposing the proposition of Hegel, Karl Marx argues that “Life is not
determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life” (2004, p. 656). The condition of material ownership of
a person determines his/her thoughts and ideas. Consciousness of a person is determined by the way he/she lives
life.
Karl Marx developed his materialist standpoint, according to which the economic factor, or political
economy, appears as the most important and fundamental for the historical and societal life of human kind
(Bartonek, 2018, p. 49). The economic factor is the base structure of a person on which his/her superstructure is
constructed. Superstructure denotes philosophy, religion, education, culture, and other mental products. As
Hegelian dialectical path is the dialectics of the Idea, Marx‟s dialectical path is the dialectic of Capital. “Capital
is the all-dominating economic power of bourgeois society. It must form the starting point as well as the
finishing point” (Marx, Grundrisse, p. 107). In capitalist society, capital is the justification for every kind of
superiority and power. The economic phenomenon is determined by the structure of the mode of production
(Althusser, 1977, p.185). In capitalist mode of production, those who own capital are benefitted.
Marx assesses the history of human society from materialist perspective, and considers proletarians to
be the agents for change. Marxism is a grand theory that tries to synthesize the whole human history in a single
line of definition. Georg Lukacs opined “The system of socialism and its view of the world, Marxism, form a
synthetic unity – perhaps the most unrelenting and rigorous synthesis since medieval Catholicism (as cited in
Burman, 2018, p. 19). Lukacs advocates for harmony and totality in history and society which, in reality is the
proposition of Marxism. Karl Korsch states that the scientific socialism of Marx consists of “a theory of social
revolution comprehended and practiced as a living totality” (as cited in Bartonek, 2018, p. 41). Marxism is a
social theory that aims at bringing change from status quo. It believes that today‟s society is unjust and less
humane which needs to be altered by the agents of change. The proletarians, according to Marxism, are the real
agents for change.
Marxism is described as a theory of social reality. Marx also points out that philosophy and ideology
are not only fabrications, but are realities in society. He writes “Philosophy doesn‟t stand outside the world, just
as the brain doesn‟t stand outside man” (as cited in Bartonek, 2018, p. 43). Philosophy has direct contact with
everyday problem. In contrast to bourgeois philosophy which is the philosophy of mere ideology, Marxist
philosophy is, what Marxists claim to be, the philosophy of practicality. This realization led to take step from
idealistic philosophy to dialectic materialism (Bartonek, 2018, p. 41). Marxism believes that forms of bourgeois
consciousness cannot be abolished through thought only; for it the material relations of production needs to be
practically overthrown. Talking about inseparability of theory and practice, Korsch in his book Marxism and
Philosophy expresses:
Theoretical criticism and practical overthrow are here inseparable activities, not in any abstract sense
but as a concrete and real alteration of the concrete and real world of bourgeois society. Such is the
most precise expression of the new materialist principle of the scientific socialism of Marx and Engels
(2009, p. 95).
Korsch has highlighted the immediate practicability of Marxist theory for the alteration of bourgeois society.
Marxism believes that this theory is strong enough to overthrow bourgeois ideology from society.
Marxist theory is considered to be scientific theory. A scientific theory believes that an agent for
change doesn‟t come from external objects; rather it is created immanently, trying to produce negation from
within. Marx tries to point out how capitalist society carries inner contradictions within itself (as cited in
Bartonek, 2018, p. 47). Talking about the historical development of human society, Marx believes that
capitalism will fall down because of its own internal problems and socialism will be established in its
replacement. Marxist philosophy can be considered to be a science because it considers the world as a whole. It
can be divided into the knowledge of the general laws of the development of nature and knowledge of the
general laws of societal development (Mareeva & Mareev, 2018, p. 72). As the writers claim, Marxist
philosophy incorporates the laws of both development of nature and societal development. Abram Deborin
(1929) has written:
Marxism, or dialectical materialism, constitutes a holistic world outlook consisting of three main parts,
namely, materialistic dialectics as a general scientific methodology (including cognitive theory),
natural dialectics and the methodology of natural science (natural-historical-materialism) and the
dialectics of history (historical materialism) (p. 8).
Deborin try to justify that Marxism is a scientific theory in which historical, materialist and natural dialectics are
dealt with scientific methodology.
Marxist critics consider this theory as a theory of liberation. It makes a critique of existing capitalist
society as it believes that capitalism is a hindrance for transformation in society. Marxism leads for radical
action for change. More than that, this theory advocates for the unity of theory and praxis. Marxism is not an
abstract theory dissociated with real society. It is also clear about the agent of change that the working class
people can lead the capitalist society into a socialist one. For Herbert Marcuse “Marxism had become a power
instrument, when in actual fact it once again needed to be a theory of liberation” (Bartonek, 2018, p. 83).
Marcuse stresses for the need of Marxism again to us as a power instrument for the liberation of human beings.
For liberation revolution is necessary. When Marxism is successful for liberating working class people from the
bourgeois ideology and capitalist domination, it becomes successful in its mission. It believes that only the
critique of capitalist ideology theoretically does not lead for change. So, a revolutionary action is necessary for
the successful transformation of society. Marxism also believes that theory and praxis must not be understood as
two separate entities that one should try to correct for the sake of liberating humankind (Bartonek, 2018, pp.
86/7). Marxism believes that it is only the theory that can liberate humankind from bourgeois status quo. This
liberation needs forceful revolution.
There are some critical voices on Marxist philosophy within its family. Some Marxist critics of later
phases have pinpointed the lacking in orthodox Marxism. Lukacs criticizes Engels for he ignores the dialectical
interaction between subject and object in the historical process. According to Lukacs, Engels one-sidedly and
rigidly talks about economic determinism. Critically commenting on Marxism, Korsch (2009) opines that
Marxist theory gradually turns into a set of purely scientific observations, without any immediate connection to
the political or other practices of class struggle (p. 60). Korsch is correct in the sense that in today‟s intellectual
discussion Marxism is much understood as an orthodox scientific theory, instead of understanding it from
contemporary political nature and the condition of class struggle. Therefore, Marxism has become more a means
for the acquisition of power rather than a philosophy of freedom.
value. It causes for the accumulation of capital (Likitkijsomboon, 1992, p. 412). The second category is
capitalist circulation which plays the role of mediation. In this stage “the straightforward and immediate
production process is transformed by the complications of the circulation sphere”(Likitkijsomboon, 1992, p.
412). The third category, capitalist production as a whole plays the role of synthesis of production and
circulation process. In this stage, “capital in general develops into many capitals, as a concrete category of many
different individual capitals confronting one another” (Likitkijsomboon, 1992, p. 413). The structural principle
of Hegelian Idealism and Marxian Materialism is common as both of them advocate for the principle of
challenging the established ideological structure.
argues that contradictions have to be overcome through real historical struggle. (as cited in Fraser & Burns,
2000, p. 3). Hegel regarded the poor and working class as incapable of being agents of social progress while
Marx considers working class people as real agents for social change. Hegel intended to have reconciliation
through the theory of dialectics where as Marx intended to have change.
Lukacs (1972) points out that Hegel missed to unite thought with being. For Lukacs “Hegel remained
imprisoned in the duality of thought and being and did not attempt to unite them concretely” (History and Class
Consciousness, p. 17). Lukacs also criticizes Hegel for highlighting thought only instead of uniting them with
being. His dialectical thought directly promoted bourgeoisie philosophy because his idealist thought can only be
exercised by elitists. The conclusion of Marx upon the philosophy of Hegel was “Hegel was a child of his age
and remained trapped within the highest form of idealist ethics and so of bourgeois philosophy” (as cited in
Fraser & Burns, 2000, p. 11). The concern of Marx is that the idealist philosophy of Hegel could not address the
potential of the large mass of working class people. Instead, it only served few bourgeois people. Marcuse
(1941) also criticizes Hegel for ignoring the significance of social and economic categories. These categories, in
reality, are the determining factors for idea according to Marcuse. “He criticizes Hegel for comprehending social
and economic categories as being nothing more than disguised philosophical concepts” (p. 258). Hegel did not
realize that the reality is quite reversing than he opined which Marx later realized. Henri Lefebvre also argues
with the line of Marcuse telling that Hegel fails to capture the entire content of human experience because he
reduces material reality to consciousness (as cited in Fraser & Burns, 2000, p. 14). Material reality, according to
Marxists, is not determined by consciousness; rather consciousness is determined by material reality. Lucio
Colletti finds Hegel‟s philosophy contradictory because “it is half idealist and half materialst” (as cited in Fraser
& Burns, 2000, p. 16). Idealism, according to Colletti, is clearly visible in Hegel and materialism seems latent. It
means Hegel himself seems to be in confusion in his theoretical stand point.
The relation between Hegel and Marx is also related to the question whether history is idealistic or
materialistic. Hegel explores the history of human civilization through the light of idealist philosophy. Historical
changes, according to Hegel, took place due to the clash between two ideas. Marx opposes his proposition with
the claim that the history of human civilization is the history of class conflict. The conflict between the people
of ruling class and working class for material possession caused transformation in society. Korsch claims that
reality does not get changed in Hegel‟s principle, but it is legitimized in its historically established form
(Bartonek, 2018, p. 50). In contrast to Hegel, Korsch opines that history must lead to a total transformation of
reality with the help of negating intervention of theory (Bartonek, 2018, p. 50). Hegel‟s idealistic dialectic does
not lead for revolution; rather it remains within philosophy. In Hegel, bourgeois society and the bourgeois state
become the political end point (Bartonek, 2018, p. 50). Hegel‟s philosophy does not advocate for radical
transformation, but Marxism demands for transforming human society radically to release it from the clutch of
capitalistic ideology.
Dialecticism is the law of nature as change occurs through the conflict between two internal factors.
Both Hegel and Marx are successful to uncover this law of natural and social progression. Hegel prefers more
on synthesis which demands reconciliation between two conflicting ideas. He regards consciousness to be
superior and guiding principle for other life activities. Karl Marx views the world differently as he believes that
human consciousness is not autonomous as it is conditioned by material possessions. The philosophical
standpoint proposed by Marx and his followers seems more politically applicable today for transforming society
from bourgeois ideology to socialist ideology.
VI. CONCLUSION
The analysis of the debate on Hegel and Marx makes a final remark that both Idealism and Materialism
were creative philosophical initiatives on the same land of Germany. These philosophers have commonly
advocated for social transformation though their concept on methods and agents contradict from each other.
Both of these philosophers seem progressive in nature.
The debate on either life is determined by consciousness or consciousness is determined by life may
exist even today that was once the great philosophical debate in the field of western metaphysics. Hegel-Marx
debate lies within the question of whether life or consciousness comes first for human. Many of the Marxist
critics have argued that Hegelian philosophy was faulty although the credit for generating dialectic methodology
goes to him. The claim of Marx that Hegel was standing with his head and he turned him right side up tries to
justify the limitation of Hegelian ideology. For true assessment of the dialectical nature of human society, Hegel
sowed the seed and other Young Hegelians tended and fertilized massively. The influence of Hegelian Idealism
upon Marxist philosophy and their point of departure are yet to be studied objectively.
REFERENCES
[1]. Althusser, L. (1977). The spectre of Hegel: Early writings. London & New York. Verso.
[2]. Bartonek, A. (2018 A). Herbert Marcuse: No dialectics, no critique. Hegelian Marxism. Eds. Bartonek &
Burman. Stockholm. Södertörn Philosophical Studies, 81-106.
[3]. Bartonek, A. (2018 B). Karl Korsch: To make the right Marx visible through Hegel. Hegelian Marxism.
Eds. Bartonek & Burman. Stockholm. Södertörn Philosophical Studies, 35-59.
[4]. Burman, A. (2018 A). A Lacanian Hegelianism: Slavoj Žižek‟s (mis-)reading of Hegel. Hegelian
Marxism. Eds. Bartonek & Burman. Stockholm. Södertörn Philosophical Studies, 185-198.
[5]. Burman, A. (2018 B). Back to Hegel! Georg Lukács, dialectics, and Hegelian Marxism. Hegelian
Marxism. Eds. Bartonek & Burman. Stockholm. Södertörn Philosophical Studies, 17-34.
[6]. Deborin, A. (1929). Dialektica I estestvoznanie. Moskava- Leningard.
[7]. Fraser, I. & Burns, T. (January 2000). Introduction: An historical survey of the Hegel- Marx connection.
Palgrave Macmillan, 1-33, DOI: 10.1057/9780230595934_1.
[8]. Korsch, K. (March 10, 1923). Die Marxsche Dialektik. Imprekorr, 330-331. (Trans. By Heinz Otto as
“The Marxist Dialectics.”)
[9]. Korsch, K. (December 2009). Marxism and philosophy. Ed. & Trans. Fred Halliday. New York: Monthly
Review press.
[10]. Lenin, V. I. (1961). Collected works, Vol. 38: philosophical notebooks. Moscow: Foreign Language
Publishing House.
[11]. Likitkijsomboon, P. (December 1992). The Hegelian dialectic and Marx‟s Capital. Cambridge Journal of
Economics, 16(4), 405-419.
[12]. Lukacs, G. (1972). History and class consciousness. Trans. Rodney Livingstone. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
[13]. Lukács, G. (1980). The destruction of reason. Trans. Peter Palmer. London: Merlin.
[14]. Marcuse, H. (1941). Reason and revolution. (2nd ed). London: Routeledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.
[15]. Mareeva, E & Mareev, S. (2018). Hegelian dialectics and Soviet Marxism (from Vladimir Lenin to Evald
Ilyenkov). Hegelian Marxism. Eds. Bartonek & Burman. Stockholm. Södertörn Philosophical Studies,
61-79.
[16]. Marx, K. (1971). Capital: A Critical Analysis of Capitalist Production. Vol. I, trans. S. Moore and E.
Aveling. Ed. F. Engels. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
[17]. Marx,K. (1973). Grundrisse, foundations of the critique of political economy (Rough Draft) 1857-58.
Trans, and Foreword by M. Nicolaus. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
[18]. Marx, K. (2004). The German Ideology. Literary theory: An anthology (2nd ed.). Eds. Julie Rivkin &
Michael Ryan. Malden, USA: Blackwell Publishing, 653-658.
IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science (IOSR-JHSS) is UGC approved Journal with
Sl. No. 5070, Journal no. 49323.