anderson1992.pdf

7/25/2019 anderson1992.pdf

1/51

K E V IN A N D E R S O N

L E N I N , H E G E L A N D W E S T E R N M A R X I S M :

F R O M T H E 1 9 2 0 s T O 1 9 5 3

KEY WORDS:Len in, He gel, Hegelian Marxism, D ialectics, W estern Marxism, K orsch,

Lukgcs, Lefebvre,Dunayevskaya,C. L. R. James

D u r i n g 1 9 1 4 - - 1 5 , h a v in g f le d to S w i t z e rl a n d a t t h e o u t b r e a k o f W o r l d

W a r I, V . I . L e n i n i m m e r s e d h i m s e l f i n t h e w o r k o f t h e G e r m a n

p h i l o s o p h e r H e g e l , e s p e c i a l l y h i s S c i e n c e o f L o g i c , 1 o n w h i c h h e w r o t e

h u n d r e d s o f p a g e s o f n o t e s. P u b l is h e d p o s t h u m o u s l y in 1 9 2 9 - - 3 0 i n

R u s s i a n a n d l a te r i n W e s t e r n l a n g u a ge s , 2 L e n i n 's H e g e l N o t e b o o k s h a v e

b e e n d i s c u s s e d f o r o v e r s i x ty y e a r s . Y e t t h e y r e m a i n a t o p i c o f r e l a ti v e

o b s c u r i t y e v e n a f t e r s o m a n y y e a r s ? T h i s i s s u r p r i s i n g g i v e n t h e

n u m e r o u s s tu d i es o f H e g e l a n d M a r x w h i c h h a v e a p p e a r e d s in c e t h e

1 9 4 0 s , g i v e n L e n i n ' s i m p o r t a n c e i n th e h i s t o r y o f M a r x i sm , a n d g i v e n

t h e f a c t t h a t L e n i n ' s o t h e r m a j o r w o r k o n d i a l e c t i c s ,

M a t e r i a l i s m a n d

E m p i r i o - C r i t i c i s m ( L e n i n C W 1 4 ), f i rs t p u b l i s h e d i n 1 9 0 8 , h a s o f t e n

b e e n c o n s i d e r e d t o b e a c r u d e a n d d r i l y p o l e m i c a l w o r k . T h a t w o r k

p r o p o u n d e d a n a r r o w l y m a t e r i a l is t r e f le c t i o n t h e o r y r a t h e r t h a n t h e

m o r e H e g e li a n M a r x i sm w h i c h c a n b e fo u n d i n th e 1 9 1 4 - - 1 5 n o t e -

b o o k s , y e t it , r a t h e r t h a n t h e H e g e l N o t e b o o k s , h a s t o o o f t e n b e e n s e e n

a s L e n in ' s m a j o r m e t h o d o l o g i c a l w o r k .

A f e w o f L e n i n ' s w r i t in g s o n H e g e l w e r e k n o w n d u r i n g h i s l if e ti m e ,

e s p e c i a l l y a 1 9 2 0 a r t i c l e o n t h e t r a d e u n i o n d e b a t e w h i c h c o n t a i n e d a

s u b s t a n ti a l d i s c u s s i o n o f H e g e l a n d d i a le c t ic s , a n d , m o r e i m p o r t a n t l y ,

h is 1 9 2 2 s p e e c h t o t h e e d i t o r s o f t h e le a d i n g S o v i e t j o u r n a l

U n d e r t h e

B a n n e r o f M a r x is m , a s p e e c h w h i c h c a l l e d f o r t h e s y s t e m a t i c s t u d y o f

H e g e l 's w o r ks . B u t t h e 1 9 1 4 - - 1 5 H e g e l N o t e b o o k s la y u n p u b l is h e d

a n d u n k n o w n d u r i n g h is l if e ti m e . T h e f i rs t p a r t o f t h e s e N o t e b o o k s t o

b e p u b li s h e d , i n 1 9 2 5 , w a s t h e e s s a y f r a g m e n t O n t h e Q u e s t i o n o f

D i a l e c t ic s , b u t it w a s f o r m a n y y e a r s w r o n g l y a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e p r e -

1 9 1 4 p e r i o d .

L e n i n ' s A b s t r a c t o f H e g e l ' s

S c i e n c e o f L o g i c ,

t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t

p a r t o f th e H e g e l N o t e b o o k s , w a s fi rs t p u b l i s h e d i n t h e S o v i e t U n i o n i n

Studies in Soviet T hought ,14: 79--1 29, 1992.

1992 Kluw erAca dem ic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.


2/51

8 KEVIN ANDE RSON

1929, an inauspicious year for free intellectual debate, for that was the

year of Stalin's victory over the last remaining opposition group within

the Communist Party, the Right Opposition led by Nikolai Bukharin.

Lenin's Abstract of Hegel's Science of Logic appeared for the first

time as Volume Nine of the Leninskij Sbornik (Lenin Miscellany), a

supplement to Lenin's collected works, under the editorship of Mos-

cow's Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute.4 Totalling over 150 printed pages of

excerpts and commentary on the Science of Logic, they showed the

depth and seriousness of Lenin's study of Hegel in 1914--15. A typical

page of the Hegel notes contains paragraphs copied in longhand from

the Science of L ogic, interspersed with Lenin's own marginalia, sum-

mary commentary, and critical assessment. Toward the end of these

notes, Lenin tended to write more of his own general observations on

the theory of dialectics. Thus, they are not simply notes, but an expres-

sion by Lenin of his own working out of a new concept of dialectic

based on Hegel.

In the following year, 1930, additional notes by Lenin on Hegel from

1915--16, plus some other notes on philosophy, most of them on

writers other than Hegel, were published as Volume Twelve of the

Lenin Miscellany.

This 1930 volume contained about eighty additional

pages of notes on Hegel, mainly on his History of Philosophy, plus a

mass of other far shorter sets of notes and commentary from 1915--16,

including brief notes on Aristotle's Metaphysics (about 9 pages), on

Ludwig Feuerbach's critique of Leibniz (about 12 pages), and on

Ferdinand Lassalle's book on Greek philosophy (about 15 pages).

Thus, the largest of the entries which were not related to Hegel in the

1914--16 is about fifteen pages, while the notes on Hegel total about

230 pages.

In addition, over 200 pages of miscellaneous pre-1914 material on

philosophical issues, ranging from an 1895 set of notes on Marx and

Engels' The Holy Family to other notes on materialism and science

made in the period 1903 to 1911, most of it connected to Lenin's 1908

book,

M aterialism and Em pirio-Criticism,

is included. The addition of

this sheer bulk, three-fourths of it not even Notebooks, but simply

photocopies of pages of books and articles in which Lenin made

marginal notes, has the effect of minimizing the centrality of Lenin's

1914 return to Hegel. This effect becomes even more pronounced in


3/51

LENIN, HEGEL AND WESTERN MARXISM 81

later editions of these Notebooks, when the two philosophical volumes

of Lenin Miscellany (1929 and 1930) were combined into one single

volume entitled

Philosophical Notebooks

with an introduction hardly

mentioning Hegel at all. 5

The history of the reception of Lenin's Hegel Notebooks since their

publication is very complicated. While a number of leading Western

Marxists -- Karl Korsch, Georg Luk~lcs, Ernst Bloch, Henri Lefebvre,

C. L. R. James, Raya Dunayevskaya -- commented on the Notebooks

or other aspects of Lenin's relation to Hegel, their comments were

often contradictory and, in the case of Lukfics and Lefebvre, apparently

constrained by the author's public adherence to Communist orthodoxy.

In h is Marx ism and Phi losophy (1923), often regarded as a mani-

festo of Western as opposed to Leninist Marxism, Korsch, far from

repudiating Lenin, openly identified with Lenin's Hegelianism. It was

only later on, in 1930, that he repudiated Lenin's work as crude and

mechanistic. In his The Y oung Hegel (1948), Lukfics developed a fairly

orthodox Communist interpretation of Lenin's Hegel Notebooks, cen-

tering around the issues of materialism and practice. He seems to

dismiss completely the issue of whether there were substantial differ-

ences between the Hegel Notebooks and

Materialism and Em pirio-

Criticism

by his creation of a near-identity between these two works.

Bloch's Subjek t -Objek t (1949) has similar limitations. Lefebvre, while

pointing at least implicitly in his 1930s writing to differences between

the Hegel Notebooks and Materialism and Empirio-Criticism did not

grapple very much with Lenin's text. And by the late 1940s, Lefebvre

had been pressured to write a self-criticism of his allegedly idealist

views.

Non-Communist German and French philosophers and social theo-

rists, such as Jean Hyppolite, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, or the members

of the Frankfurt School, were often interested in the Hegel-Marx

relationship and in Marx's newly published 184 4 Manuscripts. But these

thinkers, who did so much in the 1930s and 1940s to launch an

independent debate around the young Marx and Hegel, showed virtu-

ally no interest in the Lenin-Hegel relationship. Their lack of interest in

the topic also helped to keep the discussion of Lenin and Hegel inside

the boundaries of orthodox Communism.

It was only in the United States in the 1940s that the discussion of


4/51

82 KEVIN ANDERSON

Lenin's Hegel Notebooks began to attain a genuinely rigorous and seri-

ous level, especially in the work of Dunayevskaya. Here, in Dunayevs-

kaya's dialogue with James and Grace Lee -- her erstwhile colleagues

in a minority tendency within the Trotskyist movement -- the concept

of a break in Lenin's thought between the Hegel Notebooks and the

earlier Mater ia l i sm and Empir io-Cri t i c i sm was posed explicitly for the

first time. However, the overall state of the debate over Marxism in the

U.S. at the time did not permit the publication of an English edition of

the Hegel Notebooks, despite Dunayevskaya's efforts in this regard.

Beginning in the late 1950s, Dunayevskaya published a number of

serious commentaries on the Hegel Notebooks. The tortuous history of

their discussion in the West in the first two decades after their publica-

tion helps to explain the continuing obscurity of Lenin's Notebooks.

That history also illustrates how Lenin's Hegel Notebooks exercised a

sometimes subterranean influence on some of the founders of what is

often termed Western Marxism.

LENIN AND HEGEL IN CENTRAL EUROPE:

KORSCH, LUK/~CS, AND BLOCH

In the 1920s, the Hegelian Marxist Antonio Gramsci attempted to

launch a discussion of Lenin and Hegel in Italy. In the period 1924--

26, Gramsci published several short texts by Lenin on Hegel in Italian

Communist journals.6 One of them was the important 1915 essay

fragment On the Question of Dialectics from the Hegel Notebooks.

Unfortunately, Gramsci was jailed by Mussolini in 1926, three years

before the full Hegel Notebooks began to appear in Russian. It would

be a long time until interest revived among Italian Marxists: The

Notebooks did not appear in Italian until 1958, burdened by an anti-

Hegelian introduction by Lucio Colletti.7

Lenin's

Phi l osoph i ca l No t ebooks

were published more quickly in

other Western languages, beginning with a German edition in 1932.

While Georg Luk~ics'

History and Class Consciousness

and Karl

Korsch's M arx i sm and Ph i lo sophy both published in German in 1923,

are the two best-known Hegelian Marxist texts of the 1920s, neither

book refers directly to Lenin's still unpublished Hegel Notebooks. Yet

these books were written, at least in part, on the basis of Lenin's own


5/51


return to Hegel in 1914, for both authors were young members of

Lenin's Third International. A few indications of his own return to

Hegel had been made public by Lenin in the early 1920s, just before

his May 1922 stroke almost completely immobilized him from then

until his death in January 1924, with a few brief periods when he could

speak and write, mainly in late 1922.

A . K a r l K o r s c h

These references to Hegel by Lenin did not go unnoticed by Korsch,

who placed a quote from Lenin's 1922 article for U nder the Banner o f

M arx i sm On the Significance of Militant Materialism, as the frontis-

piece to his Marxi sm and Phi losophy . The quote from Lenin reads: We

must organize a systematic study of the Hegelian dialectic from a

materialist standpoint. '8 Then, in the concluding paragraph of M arx i sm

and Phi losophy Korsch cites Lenin's 1922 article again and writes:

Just as political action is not rendered unnecessary by the economic

action of a revolutionary class, so intellectual action is not rendered

unnecessary by either political or economic action. '9 There are no

direct references to Lenin and Hegel in Lukgcs' History and Class

Consciousness which was published a bit earlier than Korsch's book. In

Luk~cs' book, the only significant discussion of Lenin is on the theory

of imperialism and the concept of the vanguard party. 1

In 1930, having by then been expelled from the German Communist

Party, although not specifically for his philosophical views, Korsch

answered his critics at length in a long introduction to a new edition of

hi s Marx i sm and Phi losophy . By this time his thought had evolved

toward an open hostility to Lenin, both on the theory of the vanguard

party and on dialectics. Korsch here accuses Lenin of having remained

within the scientific materialism of the Marxism of the Second Inter-

national whose spiritual legacy Lenin and his companions never

abandoned, in spite of some things said in the heat of battle. '11 Thus, to

Korsch in 1930, Lenin's statements on Hegel, which he had quoted in

1923, were now seen as only isolated ones made in the heat of battle.

He goes on to sum up the philosophical dispute of 1924, in which

M arx i sm and Ph i l o sophy

was attacked crudely and dogmatically by

orthodox Communists, as one between the Leninist interpretation of


6/51

84 KEVIN ANDERSO N

Marx and Engels' materialism which had already been formally canon-

ized in Russia and those like himself who were alleged to have

deviated from this canon in the direction of idealism, of Kant's critical

epistemology and of Hegel's idealism. '12

What accounts for this apparent change of views toward Lenin's

legacy by 1930? It is certainly possible that Korsch quoted Lenin on

Hegel in 1923 only as a point of diplomacy toward his Russian

comrades, never taking Lenin seriously as a dialectical thinker. It is also

possible that his 1926 expulsion from the party as well as the virulent

attacks on him by Zinoviev, Deborin and others, all in the name of

Leninism, had helped to turn Korsch against Lenin by 1930.

But there is one additional possibility which is probably most central

to Korsch's 1930 attacks, since it is a real theoretical issue: Lenin's

early mechanistic book, Mater ia l i sm and Empir io-Cri t i c i sm appeared

in German and other Western languages beginning in 1927, gaining

immediately a wide circulation among Communists. That is in fact the

only text by Lenin on dialectics which Korsch cites in 1930. Thus it

appears that, for Korsch, Lenin's extremely mechanistic book, available

only in Russian before 1927, now overshadowed those brief post-1914

writings by Lenin on Hegel which had inspired him in 1923. Korsch

seems to say as much in a 1938 essay on Lenin's Philosophy, where

he writes that when Lenin's Mater ia l i sm and Empir io-Cri t i c i sm ap-

peared: There was not so much open hostility as indifference and, even

more awkward, just among those whose applause would have been

most cherished, a kind of polite embarrassment. '13 In his 1930 critique

of Lenin, Korsch does not show any awareness of Lenin's fuller Hegel

Notebooks, which did not appear in German until 1932. Thus, Korsch's

1930 rejection of Lenin as a Marxist philosopher appears to have been

made mainly on the basis of Mater ia li sm and Em pir io-Cri t ic i sm with-

out his having read the 1914--15 Hegel Notebooks. 14

In the above-mentioned 1938 essay Lenin's Philosophy, Korsch's

last important discussion of Lenin on dialectics, he does briefly discuss

Lenin's Hegel Notebooks, although he downplays their importance and

takes Mater ia l i sm and Empir io-Cri t i c i sm as his main point of depar-

ture. On the Hegel Notebooks, he writes:

The recent publication by the Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute of Lenin s philosophical


7/51

L E N I N , H E G E L A N D W E S T E R N M A R X I S M 8 5

papers dated fro m 19 14 et seq. shows the first germs of that particular significance

which during the last phases of Lenin's activity and after his death the philosophical

thought of Hegel assumed in Lenin's materialistic philosophy. 'is

B u t , a s a g a i n s t 1 9 2 3 , w h e r e H e g e l ' s p h i l o s o p h y w a s s e e n a s r e v o l u -

t i o n a ry , t h e s t r es s h e r e is o n t h e b o u r g e o i s c h a r a c t e r b o t h o f H e g e l ' s

p h i l o s o p h y a n d o f t h e R u s s i a n R e v o l u t i o n . A s P a t r i c k G o o d e w r it e s, f o r

K o r s c h i n t h e 1 9 3 0 s , L e n i n i s m w a s m e r e l y a n i d e o l og i c a l f o r m

a s s u m e d b y t h e b o u r g e o i s r e v o l u t i o n i n a n u n d e r d e v e l o p e d c o u n t r y . ''16

I n t h i s v e i n , K o r s c h w r i t e s a n e p i t a p h f o r L e n i n ' s H e g e l N o t e b o o k s

w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e i r r e l e v a n c e t o M a r x i s m o u t s i d e R u s s i a:

A belated revival of the whole of the formerly disowned idealistic dialectics of Hegel

served to reconcile the acceptance by the Leninists of old bourgeois materialism with

the formal demands of an apparently anti-bourgeois and proletarian revolutionary

te nde nc y. .. Thus the whole circle not only of bourgeois materialistic thought but o f all

bourgeois philosophical thought from Holbach to Hegel was actually repeated by the

Russian dominated phase o f the Marxist movement, which passed from the adoption of

18th century and Feuerbachian materialism by Plekhanov and Lenin in the pre-war

period to Lenin's appreciation of the intelligent idealism of Hegel and othe r bourgeois

philosophers of the nineteenth century as against the unintelligent materialism of the

earlier 18 th century philosophers. 17

T h u s t h e R u s si a n s w e r e o n l y a t t h e s ta g e o f W e s t E u r o p e a n d e v e l o p -

m e n t i n t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y , a n d t h e i r r e v o l u t i o n w a s t h e e q u i v a l e n t

o f t h e F r e n c h b o u r g e o i s r e v o l u t i o n o f 1 7 8 9 , w h i c h h a d b e e n f o ll o w e d

i n th o u g h t b y H e g e l ' s c r i ti q u e o f b o t h e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y r a t i o n a l i s m

a n d K a n t ' s c r i t i c a l p h i l o s o p h y . F o r K o r s c h , L e n i n ' s t u r n t o H e g e l

beg inn ing in 1914 was no t seen any longe r , a s i t had bee n in 1923 , a s

p a r t o f t h e r o a d t o w a r d a n e w M a r x i s t d i a l ec t ic o f r e v o l u t i o n fo r

W e s t e r n E u r o p e . I n s te a d , it w a s m e r e l y a n e x p r e s s i o n o f t h e b a c k w a r d -

n e s s o f R u s s i a n e c o n o m i c a n d p h i l o s op h i c d e v e l o p m e n t .

I n t h i s s e n s e , K o r s c h h a d b y 1 9 3 8 c o m e f u l l c i r c l e f r o m t h e v i e w h e

h a d e x p r e s s e d n o t o n l y o f L e n i n , b u t a l s o o f H e g e l , in t he 1 9 2 3 e d i t i o n

of h is Marxism and Phi losophy. B y t h e 1 9 3 0 s , K o r s c h n o t o n l y r e j e c t s

L e n i n o n H e g e l , b u t a l s o H e g e l g e n e r a l l y . I n a d d i t i o n , h e d o w n p l a y s t o

a s u r p r i s i n g d e g r e e M a r x ' s n e w l y p u b l i s h e d 1844 M anuscripts. This i s

s e e n i n h i s 1 9 3 8 b o o k , Karl M arx wr i t t en fo r an aca dem ic pub l i she r . 1~

H i s r e j e c t i o n o f L e n i n o n H e g e l w a s t hu s a l s o a g e n e r a l m o v e a w a y

f r o m t h e s t r e s s o n H e g e l i a n d i a l e c t i c s w i t h i n M a r x i s m a l t o g e t h e r ,


8/51

8 6 K E V I N A N D E R S O N

s o m e t h i n g w h i c h K o r s c h h i m s e lf h ad h e l p e d p i o n e e r f o r a n ew g e n e ra -

t i o n in 1 9 2 3 .

B. Georg Luk dcs

T h e p a t h w a y o f Lu kz ic s, w h o d i d r e m a i n i n t h e H u n g a r i a n C o m m u n i s t

P a r t y e v e n a f te r i t w as c o m p l e t e l y S t a l in i ze d , 19 a n d w h o m a d e f r e q u e n t

s e l f -c r i t ic i s m s , w a s , a t l e a s t o n t h e s u r f a c e , q u i t e d i f f e r e n t w i t h r e s p e c t

t o L e n i n a n d H e g e l . L u k ~ c s s p e n t m o s t o f t h e t im e u n ti l a f te r 1 9 4 5

l iv in g i n t h e S o v i e t U n i o n . H i s 1 9 2 4 t e s t a m e n t t o L e n i n c o v e r s m a n y

i s su e s - - h i s o w n s e l f -c r i ti q u e o f h is e a r l i e r l e ft c o m m u n i s t v i e w s ,

L e n i n ' s c o n c e p t o f th e p a r t y , o f im p e r i a li s m , a n d o f t h e s t a te a n d

r e v o l u t i o n - - b u t , s u r p r i s i n g l y , i t d o e s n o t p r e s e n t L e n i n a s a H e g e l i a n

M a r x i st , o r e v e n t a k e u p t h e is s u e o f L e n i n a n d H e g e l . E v e n t h o u g h

L e n i n is p r ai s e d a b s t r a c t ly a s t h e g r e a t es t th i n k e r t o h a v e b e e n

p r o d u c e d b y t h e r e v o l u t io n a r y w o rk i n g- c la s s m o v e m e n t s in c e M a r x ,

a n d h e w r i t es t h a t t h e a n al y s is o f L e n i n ' s p o l i c y a l w a y s l e a d s u s b a c k

t o t h e q u e s t i o n o f d i a l e c ti c a l m e t h o d , L u k~ ic s c o n c l u d e s b y s t r e ss i n g

L e n i n a s a p r a c t ic i n g d i a le c t ic i a n o n ly : L e n i n i s m m e a n s t h a t t h e th e o r y

o f h i s to r i c a l m a t e r i a l i s m h a s m o v e d s ti ll n e a r e r t h e d a i l y b a t t l e s o f t h e

p r o l e t a r i a t , t h a t i t h a s b e c o m e m o r e p r a c t i c a l t h a n i t c o u l d b e a t t h e

t i m e o f M a r x . '2

T h u s , L u k f ic s ' e m p h a s i s is n o t o n a c la i m t h a t L e n i n m a d e a n o r i g in a l

c o n t r i b u t i o n t o H e g e l i a n - M a r x i a n d i a l e c t i c s . I t i s u n c l e a r w h e t h e r t h i s

n o n - d i s cu s s i o n o f L e n i n a n d H e g e l w a s m e r e l y a se e m i n gl y p r u d e n t

r e s p o n s e t o t h e v i r u l en t a tt a c k s o n History an d Class Consciousness f o r

a l le g e d H e g e l i a n i d e a li s m , o r w h e t h e r i t r e f l e c t e d L u k ~ c s ' p r i v a t e

a s s e s s m e n t o f L e n i n a s d i a l e c ti c i a n as w el l. C e r t a i n l y h e w o u l d h a v e

b e e n a t le a s t as a w a r e a s w a s K o r s c h o f L e n i n ' s p u b l i c s t a t e m e n t s i n t h e

e a r l y 1 9 2 0 s o n t h e n e e d t o s t u d y H e g e l d i re c tl y , b u t h e t o o m a y n o t y e t

h a v e k n o w n a b o u t t h e fu ll e x t e n t o f L e n i n 's 1 9 1 4 - - 1 5 H e g e l N o t e -

b o o k s . Y e t m o r e t h a n l a ck o f k n o w l e d g e o f L e n i n ' s w o r k o n H e g e l o r

f e a r o f a t t a c k b y p e o p l e s u c h a s Z i n o v i e v m a y b e a t i s s u e h e r e . F o r a s

l a te a s 1 9 6 ? , l o n g a f te r L u k ~ c s h a d r e a d L e n i n ' s H e g e l N o t e b o o k s , a n d ,

a s w e w i l l s e e i n a m o m e n t , c l a i m e d t h e m a s a m a j o r i n s p i r a t i o n f o r h is

1 9 4 8 b o o k

The Young Hegel

L u k ~ c s r e m a i n s a b i t r e t i c e n t o n L e n i n ' s

H e g e l N o t e b o o k s . T h i s i s s e e n i n a p o s t s c r ip t t o a n e w e d i t i o n o f t h e


9/51


1 9 2 4 b o o k o n L e n i n , w h e r e L u k f i c s o n c e a g a i n s t re s s es t h a t f o r L e n i n ,

e v e n t h e m o s t g e n e r a l p h i lo s o p h i c a l c a t e g o r ie s . . . w e r e c o n s t a n t l y

g e a r e d t o p ra c t ic e , a s t h e o r e t i c a l p r e p a r a t i o n f o r i t ( 9 6 ). H e a l s o

w r i t e s :

A t the o utbrea k of war in 1914, after a series o f adventures with the police, he landed

up in Switzerland. Once arr ived, he decided that his f i rst task was to make use of this

holiday and to study Hegel 's Logic . . . Through his l i fe, Lenin was always learning;

whether i t was from Hegel 's Logic or f rom the op in ion of a worker on bread. (97- -98)

L e n i n ' s H e g e l N o t e b o o k s a r e h e re t r e a t e d m o r e a s a n in t e re s t i n g

b i o g r a p h i c a l f a c t t h a n a s a m a j o r t h e o r e t i c a l w o r k i n d i a le c t ic s .

T h e r e is a d i s c u s s i o n o f L e n i n ' s H e g e l N o t e b o o k s i n L u k f ic s ' s e c o n d

m a j o r b o o k o n d i a l e c t i c s , T h e Y o u n g H e g el . T h i s b o o k d e a l s s y s t e m a t i -

c a l ly w i t h H e g e l ' s P h e n o m e n o l og y o f M i n d ( 1 8 0 7 ) a n d t h e w r i ti n g s

w h i c h p r e c e d e d i t. L e n i n ' s N o t e b o o k s o n H e g e l a r e s o m e w h a t p e r i -

p h e r a l t o th e t o p i c o f L u k g c s ' b o o k , s i n c e L e n i n d e a l t o n l y w i t h H e g e l ' s

l a t e r w o r k s , b e g i n n i n g w i t h t h e S c i e n c e o f L o g i c ( 1 8 1 2 - - 1 6 ) . N o n e -

t h el e ss , L u k f ic s m a y h a v e c o n s i d e r e d T h e Y o u n g H e g e l t o h a v e b e e n

i n s p i r e d i n p a r t b y L e n i n ' s H e g e l N o t e b o o k s , a t l ea s t a c c o r d i n g t o a

b o o k o n L u k f i c s ' l i f e a n d t h o u g h t b y o n e o f h is f o r m e r s t u d e n t s , I s tv f i n

M e s z f i ro s . I n h is b i o g r a p h i c a l c h r o n o l o g y f o r t h e y e a r s 1 9 2 9 - - 3 1 ,

M e s z ~ r o s w r i t es :

In Mo scow he works at the Marx-Engels-Lenin Insti tute, directed by D. Riazanov. The

latter shows him the full typescript of Marx's Ec ono m ic and Philosophical Manuscripts

o f 1844. I t has a major impact on Luk~cs' intel lectual development, In the same period

he gets acquainted with Lenin's Philosophical Notebo oks publ i shed in 1929/30 under

the title of Len in Miscellanies IX & X II. The se wri tings, too, greatly contribute to the

modificat ion of his con cep tion of Hegel and o f his view of subject-object relat ions, of

epistemology an d o f the relationship between the w ork o f art an d social reality. 21

F r o m 1 9 3 1 t o 1 9 3 3 L u k f i cs m o v e s t o G e r m a n y , b u t f le e s t h e N a z i s a n d

r e tu r n s t o M o s c o w . F o r t h e y e a r s 1 9 3 3 - - 3 5 M e s z ~ r o s w r i te s :

He i s working on The Young Hegel (completed in the winter of 1937-38): a project

conceived during the pe riod of rethinking his earlier philosophical views in the light of

the [Marx's 1844] Paris Manuscripts and Philosophical Notebooks. (~dso in Berlin,

between 19 31 /33 , he tr ied to wo rk on this subject bu t could no t get very far with it .)22

A l t h o u g h M e s z f i r o s s ta t es t h a t T h e Y o u n g H e g e l w a s c o m p l e t e d b y


10/51

8 8 K E V IN A N D E R S O N

1 9 3 8 , i t i s f i r s t p u b l i s h e d i n 1 9 4 8 b y a l e a d i n g W e s t e r n p u b l i s h e r ,

E u r o p a V e r l a g . I n h i s p r e f a c e t o a s e c o n d e d i t i o n , p u b l i s h e d f o r t h e

f i r s t t i m e i n E a s t G e r m a n y i n 1 9 5 4 , o n l y a y e a r a f t e r S t a l i n ' s d e a t h ,

L u k~ ic s w r i t e s t h a t t h e b o o k w a s c o m p l e t e d in l a t e A u t u m n 1 93 8. 2 3

H e d o e s n o t m e n t i o n t h e h e i g h t e n e d p e r s e c u t io n s h e s u f f e r e d f r o m

1 9 3 9 o n , i n c l u d i n g s e v e r a l m o n t h s u n d e r a r r e s t i n M o s c o w a s a

T r o t s k y i s t a g e n t i n 1 9 4 1 . T h i s w a s u n d o u b t e d l y b y fa r t h e b i g g e s t

f a c t o r i n p r e v e n t i n g h i s b o o k ' s p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h o s e y e a r s E s p e c i a l l y

a f t e r i t s p u b l i c a t i o n i n 1 9 5 4 i n E a s t G e r m a n y , t h e b o o k c a m e u n d e r

s h a r p a t t a c k b y S t a l i n i s t p h i l o s o p h e r s f o r w h o m , a s I r i n g F e t s c h e r

r e c o u n ts : T h e e n e m i e s a r e t h e H e g e l i a n M a r x i st s w h o w o u l d t ry t o

s m u g g le t h e T r o j a n h o r s e o f id e a li s m i n to t h e b e l e a g u e r e d f o r t re s s o f

S o v i e t m a t e r i a li s m u n d e r t h e c o v e r o f H e g e l i a n d i a le c ti c s. '24

O u r c o n c e r n h e r e i s w i t h t h e f a c t t h a t L u k g c s ' The Young Hegel

c o n t a i n s a b r i e f c h a p t e r w h i c h i s p r o b a b l y t h e f i r s t a t t e m p t b y a m a j o r

C e n t r a l E u r o p e a n M a r x i s t t h i n k e r t o g r a p p l e w i t h L e n i n ' s H e g e l N o t e -

b o o k s . The Young Hegel i s o n e o f t h e g r e a t w o r k s o n t h e d i a l e c t i c i n

H e g e l a n d M a r x , a n d i t p r o b a b l y s h o u l d r a n k i n i m p o r t a n c e a l o n g s i d e

History and Class Consciousness. L u k ~ c s ' c o n c e r n i s t o e l a b o r a t e a n d

a n a l y z e t h e a f f i n i t i e s b e t w e e n H e g e l a n d M a r x , t h u s o v e r c o m i n g t h e

o n e - s i d e d v i e w s b o t h o f c o n s e r v a t i v e H e g e l s c h o l a r s a n d v u l g a r m a t e -

r ia l is t M arxis ts .

L u k ~ i c s d i s c u s s e s L e n i n a n d H e g e l m a i n l y i n a b r i e f c h a p t e r e n t i t l e d

L a b o r a n d t h e P r o b l e m o f T e l e o lo g y . H e t a k e s u p a n e a r ly v e r s io n o f

t h e c h a p t e r o n t e l e o lo g y in H e g e l ' s

Science of Logic

w h i c h H e g e l

d e l i v e r e d a s l e c t u r e s i n 1 8 0 5 - - 0 6 , j u s t a s t h e Phenomenology w a s b e i n g

c o m p l e t e d . H e g e l ' s c o n c e p t o f t e le o l o g y in v o l v e d a n o t i o n o f in t e rn a ll y

g e n e r a t e d c a u sa l it y f o r h u m a n b e h a v i o r. F o r t h e m a t u r e H e g e l o f t h e

Science of Lo gic

T e l e o l o g y i s e s p e c i a l l y c o n t r a s t e d w i t h m e c h a n i s m

. . [where ] no self-determination s m a n i f e st e d . ( H e g e l S L : 7 3 4 )

H e r e L u k ~ c s p r o c e e d s t o d i s c u s s a p a s s a g e i n H e g e l ' s t e l e o l o g y

c h a p t e r w h i c h l in k s h u m a n l a b o r t o t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e I d e a, a

p a s s a g e w h e r e H e g e l f o c u s e s o n t h e p l o u g h a s m o r e h o n o r a b l e t h a n

t h o s e e n j o y m e n t s w h i c h a r e p r o c u r e d f r o m i t. T h e p a s s ag e w a s q u o t e d

b y L e n i n i n h i s H e g e l N o t e b o o k s . ( L e n i n C W 3 8 : 1 8 9 , H e g e l S L : 7 4 7 )

L u k ~ c s n o t e s t h a t L e n i n c o n n e c t e d t h i s p a s s a g e t o M a r x ' s n o t i o n o f

h i s to r i ca l ma te r i a l i sm. Lukf ics the re fo re s t r e s ses tha t fo r Hege l in the


11/51

LENIN HEG EL AND WESTERN MARXISM 89

Logic teleology, human labor and human praxis (349) are concepts

that overcome the narrow limits of mechanism.

After quoting some other passages from the Hegel Notebooks,

where Lenin translates Hegel's statements into materialist dialectics,

Lukfics suggests that Lenin's discussion here relates to Marx's 1845

Theses on Feuerbach. There, writes Lukgcs, Marx had held that the

great achievement of German classical idealism was to develop the

'active side' of reality which had been rejected by the older forms of

materialism. (350) Thus, having touched on idealism, Lukfics seems to

move quickly to cover himself against the incessant attack on his own

work as idealist ever since the 1920s.

At this point, Lukfics brings in Lenin's discussion of a section of the

Science o f Logic entitled The Idea of the Good. This section directly

precedes the book's concluding chapter on The Absolute Idea. Here

Luk~cs stresses once again the concept of activity in Hegel's thought,

finding there what he now terms the concrete superiority of the

practical over the theoretical Idea. (350) Although immediately follow-

ing this Lukfics quotes another key notion in Hegel's text -- the

practical idea still lacks the moment of the theoretical idea (Hegel SL:

821), a passage which Lenin does not quote -- the overall stress here

by Lenin, which Lukfics follows, is not on the move from the practical

to the theoretical idea. Rather it is on practice only.

Luk~cs admiringly quotes Lenin's view that thus If]or Hegel action,

practice, is a logical 'syllogism,' a figure of logic, and that Marx, in

consequence, clearly followed Hegel's lead in introducing the criterion

of practice into the theory of knowledge: see the Theses on Feuerbach.

(Lenin CW 38: 217) Luk~cs concludes this brief discussion by stating

that all of this has shown that man's economic activities in particular --

and branching out from there -- human praxis in general, is of cardinal

importance for his entire philosophical system. (351--52) Here the

concept of practice, of activity, predominates over the dialectic as a

whole, and idealism is referred to positively only in the sense of action

or practice. Thus, despite the more sophisticated framework in which

the discussion is developed, we are really not so far here from Lukdcs'

view in his 1924 Lenin book of the latter as more practical than

Marx.

In passing references elsewhere in

The Young Hegel

to Lenin's


12/51

90 KEVIN ANDERSON

Philosophical Notebooks Lukfics does address the issue of idealism

versus materialism in a way that implies at least some critique of the

reigning Stalinist notion of dialectical materialism. He cites Lenin's

1915 essay fragment "On the Question of Dialectics" from the

Philo-

sophical Notebooks quoting Lenin to the effect that "[p]hilosophical

idealism is only nonsense from the standpoint of crude, metaphysical

materialism" as well as Lenin's qualification that "[i]dealism is clerical

obscurantism." Then Lukgcs adds his own comment: "With his usual

precision Lenin points out both sides of the problem. He makes it quite

clear that the idealist approach necessarily entails religious, clerical

overtones." (104) This is an incredibly one-sided interpretation by a

thinker who had attacked mechanical materialism in History and Class

Consciousness and who had once admired the decidedly non-clerical

neo-idealism of German social theorists such as Wilhelm Dilthey and

Max Weber 2s

In the 1920s Luk~ics had seen Marx's dialectic more as the unity of

idealism and materialism. In The Young Hegel Lukfics invariably treats

Lenin's M aterialism and E mpirio-Criticism as very nearly equivalent to

the 1914--15 Hegel Notebooks. Luk~ics writes at one point that: "In

Materialism and Empirio-Criticism and his Philosophical Notebooks

Lenin provides the foundations for a dialectical approach to the

objectivity of knowledge." (510) Thus, Lukfics does not discuss the

many passages in Lenin's Hegel Notebooks which have been taken up

since World War II by other theorists, who have usually stressed

Lenin's break in 1914 with the old materialism. Lukfics gives us instead

an interpretation of Lenin's concept of dialectic where mechanical

materialism and Hegelian Marxism cohabit. 26

C. Ernst Bloch

In 1949, another major work on Hegel and Marx, Ernst Bloch's

Subjekt-Objekt

appeared in an East German edition.27 Where Luk~ics

had written on the young Hegel, Bloch's Marxist reading ranges over

the whole of Hegel's work, taking up the

Phenomenology

the

Science o f

Logic and other works such as the Philosophy of Religion and the

Philosophy of History.

At this time Bloch, like Lukfics, expressed

orthodox Communist views on political issues, but did not always do so


13/51


o n p h i l o s o p h i c a l o n e s , d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t B l o c h a n d h i s s u p p o r t e r s f o r

a t i m e c o n t r o l l e d t h e m a j o r o f f ic i al E a s t G e r m a n j o u r n a l , Zeitschriftfiir

Philosophie.

A c c o r d i n g t o B l o c h ' s 1 9 5 2 P r e f a c e t o

Subjekt-Objekt

h e

a c tu a ll y c o m p o s e d m u c h o f t h e b o o k i n C a m b r i d g e , M a s s a c h u se t ts . In

t h e 1 9 6 0 s , B l o c h m o v e d t o W e s t G e r m a n y , b u t n e v e r g a v e u p h i s

c o m m i t m e n t t o M a r x i s m , s u p p o r t i n g f o r e x a m p l e t h e r a d i c a l s t u d e n t

m o v e m e n t o f 1 9 6 8 . I n t h e p o s t s c r i p t t o a 1 9 6 2 W e s t G e r m a n e d i t i o n o f

t h e b o o k , h e w r o t e t h a t in t h e E a s t t o d a y H e g e l is n o l o n g e r p o p u l a r.

13)

B l o c h m a k e s a f e w r e f e r e n c e s t o L e n i n ' s H e g e l N o t e b o o k s i n

Subjekt-Objekt b u t t h e y a r e n o t c e n t r a l t o h i s b o o k . H e a l s o m a k e s

o c c a s i o n a l , a p p a r e n t l y o b l i g a t o r y r e f e r e n c e s t o S ta lin , s u c h a s w h e r e h e

w r i t e s t h a t t h e c a t e g o r i e s o f H e g e l ' s

Logic

a r e i m p o r t a n t i n t h e w o r k o f

M a r x a n d E n g e l s , o f L e n i n a n d S ta lin . ( 1 6 2 ) I n h is 1 9 5 2 p r e f a c e to a

n e w e d i t io n B l o c h w r it e s t h a t H e g e l w a s o n e o f M a r x 's t e a c h e rs ( 1 2 )

a n d t h a t: A p e r s o n w h o w o u l d s t u d y t h e h i s to r i c a l- m a t e r i a li s t d i a le c t i c

b y l e a v i n g o u t H e g e l h a s n o p r o s p e c t o f f u ll y m a s t e r i n g h i s to r i c a l-

d ia lec t i ca l m a te r i a li sm. (12 ) In the tex t , he c la ims the he r i t age o f H eg e l

f o r M a r x is m , l a m e n t in g t h e d e c l i n e o f H e g e l i a n is m w i th i n E u r o p e a n

a n d e s p e c i a ll y G e r m a n a c a d e m i c p h i l o s o p h y a n d s o c i o l o g y a f te r 1 8 5 0

i n a c h a p t e r e n ti t le d H e g e l ' s D e a t h a n d L i f e. O n th e o t h e r h a n d , h e

w r i t e s , H e g e l ' s t h o u g h t l i v e d o n w i t h i n t h e M a r x i s t m o v e m e n t , e s p e -

c i al ly i n L e n i n ' s w o r k : L e n i n r e n e w e d a u t h e n t i c M a r x i s m n o t l e a s t b y a

r e t u rn t o t h e 'r o o t ' o f H e g e l i a n d i a l e c t i c s . . , a s w e l l a s t o H e g e l ' s L o g i c

i ts el f. ( 3 8 2 - - 3 8 3 ) B l o c h q u o t e s s e v er a l p a s s ag e s f r o m L e n i n 's H e g e l

N o t e b o o k s , in c lu d i ng t h e w e l l- k n o w n o n e o n t h e n e e d t o s t u d y H e g e l ' s

L o g i c in o r d e r f u l ly t o g r a s p M a r x ' s Capital.

A t a n o t h e r p o i n t B l o c h s i n g l e s o u t t h e f a c t t h a t L e n i n c o n c e r n e d

h i m s e l f g r e a t l y w i t h H e g e l ' s c o n c e p t o f t h e p r a c t i c a l i d e a n e a r t h e e n d

o f t h e Sc ience o f Log ic . S i m i l a r t o L u k f i c s ' a p p r o a c h i n The Young

Hegel

B l o c h c o n n e c t s t h is t o t h e M a r x i s t c o n c e p t o f t h e u n i ty o f th e o r y

a n d p r a c t i c e , w i t h t h e e m p h a s i s o n p ra c t ic e : T h e o r y l e a d s t o c o n c r e t e

p r a c t ic e . ( 4 2 5 ) B u t w h e r e L u k f i c s s e e m s to le a v e t h e q u e s t i o n a t t h e

l e v e l o f t h e p r i m a c y o f p r a c t i c e o v e r t h e o r y i n L e n i n ' s H e g e l N o t e -

b o o k s , B l o c h g o e s o n t o t a k e u p a s w e l l t h e m o r e c o n t r o v e r s i a l

p a s s a g e s w h e r e L e n i n w r i t e s t h a t H e g e l ' s i d e a l i s m i s g r e a t e r t h a n c r u d e

m a t e r i a li s m , s u c h a s w h e n L e n i n w r o t e t h a t i n te l li g e nt i d e a l i sm i s


14/51

92

K E V I N A N D E R S O N

closer to intelligent materialism than stupid materialism, or when

Lenin writes that Hegel stretches a hand to materialism at the end of

the

Science o f Logic.

(431) In this sense, Bloch's work defends Hegelian

idealism more openly than does Luk~ics as a major source of Marxist

dialectics.

However, this is not without ambiguities. Thus, similar to Lukfics,

Bloch also praises Lenin's crudely materialist book Materialism and

Empirio Criticism in Subjekt O bjekt as a great Marxist critique of

positivism (109), not seeming to acknowledge the possibility of a

break or even a shift of emphasis between that work and Lenin's 1914

Hegel Notebooks. I have found no discussion of Lenin's Hegel Note-

books in Bloch's other writings, except for some passing references in

his 1963 Tiibingen lectures. 2s In Bloch's 1970 article on the one

hundredth anniversary of Lenin's birth, there is no mention at all of the

Hegel Notebooks. 29 As with the other important Central European

Hegelian Marxists during this period whom we have taken up, while

Bloch was certainly aware of Lenin's Hegel Notebooks, he did not

discuss them very much.

Thus, despite the publication of Lenin's Hegel Notebooks in German

in 1932 and the interest that Korsch, Lukfics, and Bloch had in the

Hegel-Marx relationship, there is not as much discussion of Lenin's

relation to Hegel by these theorists as one might have expected.

Nonetheless, Lenin's Hegel Notebooks were known to these theorists,

and they remained a point of reference, even if in some cases a negative

one. The Hegel Notebooks were greeted with more acclaim, at least in

certain quarters, in France and the U.S., societies whose intellectual

cultures were decidedly more anti-Hegelian, but where, during the

Depression of the 1930s, intellectuals began to turn more seriously

than before toward an examination of Marxian theory.

LENIN A ND HEGEL IN F RANCE IN THE 193 s :

L E F E B V R E A N D G U T E R M A N

It was in France on the eve of the Second World War that Lenin's

Hegel Notebooks first began to get some serious public discussion by

Western Marxists. Henri Lefebvre and Norbert Guterman, two un-

orthodox members of the French Communist Party, wrote a 130-page


15/51

L E N I N H E G E L A N D W E S T E R N M A R X I S M

9 3

i n t r o d u c t i o n t o a F r e n c h e d i t io n o f L e n i n ' s H e g e l N o t e b o o k s , w h i c h

a p p e a r e d i n 1 9 3 8 , u n d e r t h e t i t l e

Cahiers de Ldnine sur la dialect ique

de Hegel

p u b l i s h e d b y t h e p r e s t i g i o u s P a r i s p u b l i s h i n g h o u s e G a l l i -

m a r d . L e f e b v r e , o n e o f th e l e a d in g F r e n c h M a r x i s t t h e o ri st s, i s k n o w n

m or e fo r h is c r i t ique o f ev e ry da y li fe , and fo r h is wr i tings on a l i ena t ion ,

h u m a n i s m a n d t h e y o u n g M a r x , th a n f o r h is d i s c u s si o n o f L e n i n a n d

H e g e l . F o r e x a m p l e , G e o r g e L i c h th e i m h a s w r i tt e n t h a t L e f e b v r e i n

1 9 3 9 w a s a l r e a d y g o i n g a g a i n s t t h e o f fi c ia l l in e , w h i c h i n t h o s e y e a r s

w a s b a s e d o n t h e L e n i n i s t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f M a r x i s m a s a d o c t r i n e

c e n t e r e d o n t h e a n a l y s i s o f c a p i t a l i s m ' s p o l i t i c a l a n d e c o n o m i c c o n t r a -

d i c ti o n s . '3 I n f a c t, L e f e b v r e ' s s t u d y o f b o t h M a r x ' s 1844 Manuscripts

a n d L e n i n ' s H e g e l N o t e b o o k s i n t h e 1 9 3 0 s w a s c r u c i a l t o t h e m o r e

h u m a n i st ic , H e g e l i a n M a r x i s m w h i c h h e b e g a n t o d e v e l o p . T h e q u e s t i o n

w a s n o t o n e o f re j ec t in g L e n i n , b u t r a t h e r o f h o w t o v i e w L e n i n ' s w o r k .

L e f e b v r e ' s i n t e r e s t i n H e g e l w e n t b a c k t o t h e 1 9 2 0 s w h e n h e ,

G u t e r m a n a n d o t h e r r a d i c a l i n t e l l e c t u a l s w e r e d r a w n t o s u r r e a l i s m , a n d

f o u n d e d t h e j o u r n a l Phi losophies. Y e a r s l a te r L e f e b v r e w r o t e , I b e g a n

t o r e a d H e g e l , w h o l e d m e t o M a r x , t h is a f t e r t h e s u rr e a l is t A n d r ~

B r e t o n h a d s h o w n h i m a c o p y o f H e g e l 's Science o f Log ic in 19 24 . 31

W h i l e H e g e l w a s n o t a t o p i c o f m u c h i n t e r e s t i n F r a n c e u n t il t h e la t e

1 9 3 0 s , w h e n A l e x a n d r e K o j ~ v e b e g a n t o g iv e h is f a m o u s s e m i n a r, t h e r e

w e r e s o m e a r t i c l e s o n H e g e l p u b l i s h e d i n t h e v e n e r a b l e Revue de

mdtaphys ique e t de morale

i n 1 9 3 1 , t h e h u n d r e d t h a n n i v e rs a r y o f

H e g e l ' s d e a th , i n c lu d in g a m u c h d i s c u s se d o n e b y N i k o l a i H a r t m a n n .

T h e f o ll o w in g y e a r, t h e y o u n g G e o r g e s B a t a i ll e e n t e r e d t h e d e b a t e o v e r

H e g e l . H a r t m a n n a n d B a t a i l l e , d e s p i t e t h e i r d i f f e r e n c e s , e a c h t e n d e d t o

a t t a c k f r o m t h e s t a n d p o i n t o f s c ie n c e th e t y p e o f di a le c ti c e m p l o y e d b y

H e g e l a n d M a r x . B a t a i l le ' s 1 9 3 2 a r t ic l e is n o t a b l e f o r i ts b r i e f r e f e r e n c e

t o L e n i n ' s 1 9 1 5 e s s a y f r a g m e n t O n D i a l e c t ic s , a l t h o u g h h e w a s

s e e m i n g l y u n a w a r e t h a t t hi s f r a g m e n t w a s p a r t o f a la r g e r w h o l e . 3 2

L e f e b v r e j o i n ed t h e C o m m u n i s t P a r t y i n 1 9 2 8 a n d r e m a i n e d a n

u n o r t h o d o x m e m b e r u n t i l 1 9 5 8 , w h e n h e w a s e x p e l l e d . D u r i n g t h e

1 9 3 0 s h e a n d G u t e r m a n i n t r o d u c e d t h e fi rs t F r e n c h t r a n sl a ti o ns , n o t

o n l y o f L e n i n 's H e g e l N o t e b o o k s , b u t a ls o o f M a r x 's C r i ti q u e o f t h e

H e g e l i a n D i a l e c t ic , f r o m t h e

1844 Manuscripts.

M a r x ' s c r i t i q u e w a s

p u b l i s h e d i n

Avant -pos te

a n o t h e r j o u r n a l w h i c h t h e y m a i n t a in e d f o r a

b r i e f p e r i o d . 33 O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , a s i n G e r m a n y , t h e P a r t y p u b l i s h in g


16/51


h o u s e h a d r u s h e d L e n i n ' s M a t e r i a l i s m a n d E m p i r i o - C r i t i c i s m i n t o p r i n t

i n 1 9 2 8 , a s t h e f i rs t v o l u m e o f h i s C o l l e c t e d W o r k s t o b e p u b l i s h e d i n

F r e n c h . 34 M a r t i n J a y e x p r e s s e s a w i d e l y h e l d v i e w o f L e f e b v r e w h e n h e

w r i t e s :

Well before his departure from the PCF, however, Lefebvre had fought to open its

mind to a m ore philosophically and less scientistically inclined version of M arxism. An d

well before the im pact on other Marxists of the H egel Renaissance led by Koj~ve and

Hyp polite, he had taken to heart the lesson he ha d first learned fro m Breton, that Hegel

was crucial for the understanding of M a rx . . . As o ne of the firs t in France to read and

appreciate the importance of the 1844 Paris M anuscripts,he was able to see the links

between the young Marx and Hegel, in particular the Hegel of the Phenomenology

rather than the

L o g ic 3 5

W h a t i s m i s s i n g h e r e , h o w e v e r , is a n a p p r e c i a t i o n o f L e f e b v r e ' s w o r k

w i th L e n i n ' s H e g e l N o t e b o o k s , t o w h i c h w e n o w t ur n .

L e f e b v r e a n d G u t e r m a n w r i te th a t L e n i n 's H e g e l N o t e b o o k s s h ow

t h e p r o g r e s s o f h is t h o u g h t s in c e M a t e r i a l i s m a n d E m p i r i o -

Cr iticism . 36 T h i s i s t h e i r f i r s t a n d o n l y r e f e r e n c e t o a n y d i f f e r e n c e s

b e t w e e n L e n i n ' s H e g e l N o t e b o o k s a n d h i s e a r l i e r w r i t i n g s . W h i l e

o b l i q u e , i t i m p l i e s th a t t h e y s e e t h e H e g e l N o t e b o o k s a s t h e h i g h e r

d e v e l o p m e n t o f L e n i n ' s c o n c e p t o f d ia le c ti c. I n fa c t t h e i r n o n - d i s c u s s i o n

o f M a t e r i a l i s m a n d E m p i r i o - C r i t i c i s m , e x c e p t i n th i s o n e b r i e f p a s s a g e ,

i s r a t h e r t e l li ng .

T h e f o r m i n w h ic h G u t e r m a n a n d L e f e b v r e p u b li sh e d L e n i n 's H e g e l

N o t e b o o k s i s a l s o v e r y s i g n i f i c a n t . F i r s t , i t w a s p r i n t e d b y a m a j o r

l i te r a r y a n d p h i l o s o p h i c a l p u b l i s h e r , G a l l i m a r d , n o t a p a r t y p r e s s .

S e c o n d , t h at th e s e w e r e N o t e b o o k s d e v o t e d t o t h e w o r k o f H e g e l w a s

e v i d e n t i n t h e t i t l e i t s e l f , Cahiers sur la d ia lect ique de Hegel , a s a g a i n s t

t h e S ta li n is t e d it io n s w h i c h d o w n p l a y e d L e n i n ' s c o n c e r n w i th H e g e l b y

u s i n g t h e m o r e a b s t r a c t t i t l e , P h i l o s o p h i c a l N o t e b o o k s . T h i r d , u n l i k e i n

t h e S t al in i st e d it io n s , th e m o s t i m p o r t a n t m a n u s c r i p t , L e n i n ' s 1 9 1 4

A b s t r a c t o f H e g e l ' s S c i e nc e o f L o g i c , w a s p r e s e n t e d h e r e b y i t se lf i n a

s i n g l e v o l u m e , n o t m i x e d i n w i t h o t h e r w r i t i n g s a s i n t h e P h i l o s o p h i c a l

No tebo oks . 37 T h i s d i d n o t m e a n t h a t t h e e d i t i o n w a s w i t h o u t i t s o w n

p r o b l e m s . G a l l im a r d i n s i st ed t h a t L e n i n 's c o m m e n t s o n H e g e l b e

c a r r i e d n o t i n t h e m a r g i n s a s h e h a d w r i t t e n t h e m , b u t w i t h a s y s te m o f

f o o t n o t e s a t th e b o t t o m o f t h e p ag e , w h i c h t e n d e d t o m u d d l e L e n i n 's

o r i g i na l t e x t . 3s


17/51

L E N I N , H E G E L A N D W E S T E R N M A R X IS M 9 5

G u t e r m a n a n d L e f e b v r e b e g in t h e ir i n tr o d u c t i o n b y c o n t e n d i n g t h a t

i n L e n i n ' s H e g e l N o t e b o o k s : T h e r e a d e r f i n d s h i m s e l f i n t h e p r e s e n c e

o f i d e a s w h i c h , t a k e n i n a l l t h e i r s i g n i f i c a n c e , i n t h e t o t a l i t y o f t h e i r a i m s

and in teres t s ,

s u p p o r t t h e c o m p a r i s o n w i t h t h e g r e a t e s t p h i l o s o p h i c a l

w o r k s . ( 7 ) A t t h e s a m e t i m e , t h e y w r i te th a t L e n i n w a s n o t o n e o f

t h o s e m e n f o r w h o m a c t i o n is o p p o s e d t o th o u g h t ( 9) , c al li ng a tt e n t i o n

t o t h e d a t e o f c o m p o s i t i o n o f t h e H e g e l N o t e b o o k s , i n th e m i d s t o f th e

h o l o c a u s t o f W o r l d W a r I :

Lenin reads Hegel at the mo men t when the unity of the industrial w orl d tears itself

apart, w he n the fragments of this unity , wh ich was thought to have been realized,

violently collide w ith one another: when all of the contradictions unchain them selves.

Th e H egelian theory o f contradiction shows bJm that the m oment w hen the

solution, a

higher unity, seem s to move further aw ay, is sometimes that [mom ent] wh en it is

approa ching. (9)

T h e y w r i t e t h a t t h e v i r u l en t n a t i o n a l i sm L e n i n fa c e d in 1 9 1 4 a l r e a d y

a n t ic i p a te s fa s ci st i d e o l o g y ( 9 - - 1 0 ) , l i n k in g th e H e g e l N o t e b o o k s t o

t h e c o n c r e t e p r o b l e m s o f t h e 1 9 3 0 s . F o r L e n i n i n 1 9 1 4 a n d a f te r , h is

v i s io n d r a w n f r o m t h e H e g e l N o t e b o o k s p r e p a r e s h is a c t i o n ( 10 ) .

I t is n o t , t h e y c l ai m , t h a t L e n i n a c c e p t e d H e g e l u n c r i t i c a ll y , b u t

n e i t h e r i s i t t r u e t h a t h e r e j e c t e d H e g e l . F o r L e n i n :

IT]he critical reading [of Hegel] is a lso a creative act. Lenin judges Heg el w ith a severity

that one could not have except toward oneself -- towards one's past, at the mom ent one

surmoun ts it. (12)

I n t h is s e n s e L e n i n i s c r i ti c a l ly a p p r o p r i a t i n g c l as s ic a l G e r m a n p h i l o s o -

p h y f o r t h e w o r k i n g c l a s s , a s M a r x a n d E n g e l s h a d u r g e d . F u r t h e r , t h e

H e g e l N o t e b o o k s s h e d n e w f ig ht o n t h e p r o b l e m o f h o w M a r x i sm is t o

a p p r o p r i a t e H e g e l . F o r m o s t M a r x i s t s , d i a l e c t i c a l m e t h o d i s t h e o n l y

v a l u a b l e l e g a c y o f H e g e l a n d f o r t h e m , t h e c o n t e n t o f H e g e l i a n i s m

n e e d s t o b e r e j e c t e d ( 1 4 - - 1 5 ) . F o r s o m e , H e g e l ' s m e t h o d is t h e p o i n t

o f d e p a r t u r e f o r a m a t e r i a l i s t d i a l e c t i c . F o r o t h e r s , H e g e l ' s d i a l e c t i c

b e c o m e s m a t e r i a li s t v ia M a r x i s m , w h i c h i s

a

t h e o r y o f r e a l fo r c e s , t h e i r

e q u i l i b ri u m a n d t h e r u p t u r e o f t hi s m e c h a n i c a l e q u i li b r iu m ( 1 5 ).

T h e y c o n t e n d t h a t f o r L e n i n i n t h e H e g e l N o t e b o o k s , t h e s e i s s u e s

a r e p o s e d i n a m u c h m o r e p r o f o u n d a n d c o n c r e t e m a n n e r ( 15 ) .

G u t e r m a n a n d L e f e b v r e g i ve a s a n e x a m p l e L e n i n ' s d i s c u s s io n o f t h e

f i n al c h a p t e r o f H e g e l ' s

S c i e n c e o f L o g i c ,

T h e A b s o l u t e I d ea :


18/51


Hegelian idealism has an objective aspect. His the ory of religion and the state is

unacceptable. How ever, as Lenin remarks, the m ost idealistic chapter o f H egel's Logic,

that on the AbsoluteIdea, is a t the sam e tim e most materialist.(15)

T h e r e f o r e a n y i n v er si o n o f H e g e l b y M a r x i s ts c a n n o t b e a s im p l e

o p e r a t i o n ( 1 6 ) .

W i t h s o m e e x i s t e n t i a l i s t o v e r t o n e s , t h e y t a k e i s s u e w i t h H e g e l a s a

m e t a p h y s i c i a n ( 1 7 ). T h e y a l s o p o i n t to t h r e e s e t s o f i s su e s i n n e e d o f

d i s c u s s io n . F i r s t a r e th o s e p r o b l e m s a l r e a d y e l a b o r a t e d b y d ia l e c ti c a l

m a t e r ia l i sm ( 1 9 ) , i n c lu d i n g t h e t h e o r y o f c o n t r a d i c t i o n , d i a l e ct ic a l

r e l a t i v i s m , a n d , i n a d d i t i o n , t h e u n i t y o f s u b j e c t a n d o b j e c t a s w e l l a s

t h a t o f t h e o r y a n d p ra c t ic e . S e c o n d c o m e t h o s e p r o b l e m s o n w h i c h t h e

f o u n d e r s o f M a r x i s m g a v e p r e c is e i n di c at io n s , b u t w h i c h n e e d t o b e

t a k e n u p a g a i n i n l ig h t o f c o n t e m p o r a r y p h i l o s o p h i c a l t h o u g h t ( 1 9 ).

T h e s e i n c l u d e c a t e g o r i e s s u c h a s c o n s c i o u s n e s s a n d i d e o l o g y , p r a x is ,

a n d t h e r e l a t io n o f t h e i n d i v id u a l t o t h e s o c ia l ( 1 9 ). T h i r d c o m e o p e n

p r o b l e m s , p e r s p e c t i v e s f o r t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f d i a le c t ic a l t h o u g h t

( 1 9) , i ss u e s p r e s u m a b l y n o t a d d r e s s e d v e r y m u c h b y M a r x , E n g e l s a n d

L e n i n . H e r e o n e o f t h e k e y i s s u e s m e n t i o n e d i s t h a t o f a l ie n a ti o n .

F r o m t hi s p o i n t o n m o s t o f th e i r l o n g i n t r o d u c t io n i s t a k e n u p w i t h

t h e s e a n d o t h e r g e n e r a l p r o b l e m s i n H e g e l ' s t h o u g h t a n d i t s r e l e v a n c e

t o M a r x i s m , w i t h o n l y o c c a s i o n a l r e f e r e n c e s t o L e n i n ' s H e g e l N o t e -

b o o k s . B e c a u s e o f t h i s , L e n i n ' s H e g e l N o t e b o o k s u n f o r t u n a t e l y n e v e r

g e t t h e t y p e o f s e r i o u s a n d p r o b i n g d i s c u s s i o n w h i c h t h e y d e s e r v e , e v e n

a c c o r d i n g t o G u t e r m a n a n d L e f e b v r e ' s o w n s t at e m e n t s a t t h e be g i n ni n g

o f t h e i r i n t r o d u c t i o n .

I n s t e a d , g e n e r a l c o n c e p t s w i t h i n d i a l e c t i c s s u c h a s c o n t r a d i c t i o n ,

t o t a l i t y a n d n e g a t i v i t y a r e e a c h d i s c u s s e d a t s o m e l e n g t h . N o n - M a r x i s t

H e g e l i a n s s u c h a s B e n d e t t o C r o c e a r e c r i t i q u e d f o r h a v i n g d o w n p l a y e d

t h e c o n c e p t o f c o n t r a d i c t i o n , w h i l e t h e c o n c e p t o f t h e t o t a l i t y i s

c o n t r a s t e d b o t h t o t h a t o f t h e i so l a t e d b o u r g e o i s i n d iv i d u a l a n d t o t h e

w a y i n w h i c h t h e f a s c is t s t a t e m a k e s a p a r o d y o u t o f t h e a c t u a ll y

e x i st in g to t a l it y ( 3 4 ). O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , H e g e l ' s c o n c e p t o f n e g a t i v it y

a s t h e p r i n c i p a l m o t o r o f t h e d ia l e c ti c a l m o v e m e n t i s n o t , t h e y a rg u e ,

t o b e c o n f u s e d w i t h t h e e x i st e n ti a li st c o n c e p t o f N o t h i n g n e s s ( 4 1 ).

A s a g a in s t t h o s e M a r x is ts w h o w o u l d r e d u c e d i a l ec t ic t o a t h e o r y o f

k n o w l e d g e

g n o s d o l o g i e ]

o n l y , G u t e r m a n a n d L e f e b v r e h o l d t h a t L e n i n

w a s i n t e r e s t e d a s m u c h i n t h e liv in g c o n t e x t ( 5 0 ) o f H e g e l ' s d i a le c t ic


19/51

L E N I N , H E G E L A N D W E S T E R N M A R X I SM 9 7

a s h e w a s i n t h e m e t h o d a l o n e . N o r c a n d i a l e c t i c b e r e d u c e d t o a s e t o f

f o r m a l la w s. T h e y w r i t e t h a t a f t e r L e n i n h a s m a d e h is s t u d y o f H e g e l :

H e [Lenin] insists on certain laws whi ch Hegel has left in the shadow s: Th e law of

developm ent in a spiral (in bein g and in thought). Rappo rt and interaction of form and

content. Unity of theory and practice. Unity of the relative and the absolute, of the

finite and the infinite. (52--53 )

I n k e e p i n g w i t h t h e a v e r s i o n t o t o t a li t y so c h a r a c t e r is t i c o f F r e n c h

t h o u g h t i n t h e t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y , 39 t h e y c o n t r a s t H e g e l ' s c l o s e d

t o t al it y t o t h e o p e n t o ta l it y o f M a r x - L e n i n ( 5 4 - - 5 5 ) . T h i s c l o s e d

t o ta l it y is f o u n d i n t h e c h a p t e r o n t h e A b s o l u t e I d e a i n t h e Science o f

Logic ,

a t w h i c h p o i n t , i n t h e i r v i e w , H e g e l h y p o s t a s i z e s n e g a t iv i t y , a s i f

a m y s t i c a l f o r c e f r o m t h e d e p t h s , c a s t in g it d o w n . I n t h is w a y , h a v i n g

t h r o w n d o w n n e g a t iv i t y , i n t h e fi n a l c h a p t e r H e g e l m y s t i f ie s h i s

s y s t e m ( 5 9) . A n o t h e r m a j o r f la w in H e g e l i s t h a t h e fe t is h iz e s r e a s o n :

I n p u s h i n g r a t io n a l i s m t o th e a b s u r d , H e g e l c o m p r o m i s e s it ( 6 5) .

N e i t h e r t h e v i e w t h a t H e g e l ' s

Science of Logic

e n d s i n a c l o s e d t o t a l i t y

w h e r e n e g a t i v it y is a b a n d o n e d , n o r a c r i t i q u e o f H e g e l f o r p u s h i n g

r e a s o n t o t h e a b s u r d c a n b e f o u n d i n th e t e x t o f L e n i n ' s H e g e l

N o t e b o o k s . T h e y a r e, h o w e v e r , k e y c o n c e p t s i n s u rr e a li s t t h o u g h t ,

p o s s ib l y c a r r ie d o v e r b y G u t e r m a n a n d L e f e b v r e f ro m t h e 1 9 2 0 s. 4 T h e

a b o v e is t h e r e f o r e a n e x a m p l e o f t h e p r o b l e m a t i c n a t u r e o f t h e i r

i n t r o d u c t i o n , w h i c h t o o o f t e n t e n d s t o i m p o s e t h e i r o w n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n

o f t h e d i a le c ti c o n L e n i n ' s t e x t, s in c e a t n o p o i n t d o t h e y in d i c a t e w h e r e

t h e i r o w n v i e w d i ff e rs f r o m L e n i n ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f H e g e l 's Science of

Logic.

C r i ti q u i n g H e g e l ' s c o n c e p t o f c o n s c i o u s n e s s, t h e y r e f e r t o L e n i n

o n c e a g ai n :

Hegel's Logic -- as Lenin saw -- reattaches consciousness to the movement of the

universe, by degree, contradicting in t his way the notion of the H egelian system of a

closed subjectivity. Hegel, in a sense, opens u p consciousness and reintegrates it into

universal interaction. Materialism prolongs and specifies thi s interaction, reintegrating

into daily life concrete hum an existence.(79)

W h i l e n o t e x tu a l r e f e r e n c e is g iv e n w i t h i n L e n i n ' s H e g e l N o t e b o o k s t o

s u p p o r t s u c h a c o n c l u s i o n , a n d n o n e c o u l d b e f o u n d b y t h i s w r i t e r , i t

d o e s h a v e s t r o n g o v e r t o n e s o f L e f e b v r e ' s l a t e r w r it in g s o n t h e p r o b l e m

o f e v e r y d a y l i fe .


20/51

98 KEVIN ANDERSON

Throughout, Hegel, Marx and Lenin are contrasted to Heidegger

and Nietzsche. This is an effort to make Lenin and Hegel actual for the

philosophical debates of the 1930s. They write: To Nietzsche's for-

mula 'Man must be surpassed,' Marxism responds: 'Man is the one who

surpasses.' (85) This strong affirmation of Marxism as a humanism is

preceded by an attack on the line of irrationalist idealism, from

Kierkegaard to Heidegger (75). They defend the Hegelian-Marxian

notion of a social individual versus both liberalism and fascism, the

latter of which poses the nation and the collectivity as absolute,

exterior and superior values, before which the individual mus t stand

aside (89).

An entire section of their introduction is devoted to The Category

of Practice. Similar to the focus of Lenin, practice is connected to the

interaction of man and nature. (97) Also following Lenin, they empha-

size Hegel's section on The Idea of the Good just before the conclud-

ing chapter of the Science of L ogic a section where, as we have seen in

Luk~cs' discussion, action and the practical Idea are greatly stressed by

Hegel. But Guterman and Lefebvre's view is a bit different here from

that of Luk~ics, since they emphasize the moment of utopianism within

both Hegel's text and the philosophical tradition:

The Idea of the Good was the non-revolutionaryform, parallel to utopianism, of

[human] aspirations and demands .. . These aspirations are transposed, or sublimate

themselves, alienate hemselves n mystical orms (religion,magic,mysticism). 103)

They conclude that the materialist dialectic, following as it does after

Hegel, unites the real and the possible. (105)

A final section of their introduction is devoted to the concept of

alienation, a category found in Marx's

184 4 M anuscripts

but not in

Lenin's Hegel Notebooks. For Hegel, they hold that the development of

the Idea is a process of various stages of alienation. Only Marx shows

how a larger and more effective concept of reason results from a

critique of Hegel's concept of alienation. Ludwig Feuerbach's error was

to repudiate not only Hegelian idealism, but also the dialectic (128),

while Marx held onto the dialectic. They sum up the whole introduction

by discussing the Hegelian Idea in a materialist sense (134). Besides

the categories which one would expect in a Hegelian Marxism -- self

movement of humanity and nature, unity of finite and infinite, and of


21/51

L E NIN HE GE L AND W E S T E RN M ARXIS M 9 9

h u m a n b e i n g a n d n a t u r e , a n d t o t a l h u m a n b e i n g , t h e b r i n g i n g d o w n t o

e a r t h o f w h a t th e h u m a n s p ir it a n d r e li g io n s h a d y e a r n e d f o r - - t h e r e

is a ls o a q u o t e f r o m t h e n i n e t ee n t h c e n t u r y s y m b o l i st p o e t A r t h u r

R i m b a u d o n th e u n i ty o f b o d y a n d s o u l ( 1 3 4 - - 3 5 ) , t h e l a tt e r g iv in g

o n c e a g a i n a f la v o r o f th e i r s u r r e a l i s m o f t h e 1 9 2 0 s .

T h u s , f a r f r o m a c l o s e t e x tu a l a n a l y si s o f L e n i n ' s H e g e l N o t e b o o k s ,

t h e ir p u b l i c a t io n b y G a l li m a r d w a s f o r G u t e r m a n a n d L e f e b v r e t h e

o c c a s i o n f o r a b r o a d s t a t e m e n t o n H e g e l i a n M a r x i s m . A f o c u s o n t h e

f lu i d, s e l f - d e v e l o p i n g c h a r a c t e r o f H e g e l ' s d i al e c ti c i s w h a t s t a n d s o u t i n

t h e i r a c c o u n t , a l b e i t w i t h s o m e o v e r t o n e s o f b o t h s u r r e a l is m a n d

e x i s t e n t i a l i s m , w h i c h a r e h a r d l y t o b e f o u n d i n L e n i n ' s t e x t . E v e n a

m o r e s e r io u s p r o b l e m i s p r e s e n t e d w h e n t h e i r s h a r p c r i t iq u e o f H e g e l ' s

c o n c e p t o f t o t a li t y i n t h e c h a p t e r o n th e A b s o l u t e I d e a p u t s a c e r t a in

t y p e o f d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n H e g e l i a n a n d M a r x i a n t h o u g h t , a s e p a r a t i o n

w h i c h i s n o t f o u n d i n L e n i n ' s H e g e l N o t e b o o k s , a t l e a s t n o t o n t h i s

pa r t i cu la r i s sue . In th i s way , a s w i th Lukf ics , i t i s two Wes te rn , Hege l i an

M a r x i s t s w h o a r e s u r p r i s i n g l y a n x i o u s t o p u t a g r e a t e r d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n

t h e m s e l v e s a n d H e g e l ' s i d e a l i s m t h a n d i d L e n i n i n h i s o w n H e g e l

N o t e b o o k s .

T h e b e s t k n o w n r e s u l t o f L e f e b v r e ' s g r ap p l in g i n t h e 1 9 3 0 s w i t h

M a r x ' s 1844 Manuscripts a n d L e n i n 's H e g e l N o t e b o o k s is th e b o o k h e

p u b l i s h e d i n 1 9 3 9 , Dialectical Materialism. A l t h o u g h t h i s b o o k n e v e r

m e n t i o n s L e n i n 's H e g e l N o t e b o o k s , m u c h o f t h e t y p e o f H e g e l i a n

M a r x i s m d e v e l o p e d in G u t e r m a n a n d L e f e b v r e ' s i n t r o d u c t i o n t o L e n i n

i s c a r r i e d o v e r i n t o Dialectical Materialism. A s d i d L e n i n i n t h e H e g e l

N o t e b o o k s , L e f e b v r e h e r e s t r e s s e s t h a t i n t h e Science of Logic H e g e l

s a w t h e a b s o l u t e I d e a a s a u n i t y o f p r a c t i c e a n d k n o w l e d g e , o f t h e

c rea t ive ac t iv i ty and though t . ''41 Ye t , Le feb vre adds , un fo r tuna te ly

H e g e l d i d n o t e l u c i d a t e a c t i o n i t se l f ( 5 0 - - 5 1 ) . H e a d d s th e a d d i t io n a l

p o i n t h e r e t h a t i n t h e

Science of Logic

H e g e l ' s s y s t e m . . . a b o l i s h e s

b o t h c o n t r a d i c t io n a n d B e c o m i n g i n t h e e n d . ( 5 7 ) O t h e r t h e m e s f l o w

m o r e d i r e ct l y f r o m M a r x 's 1844 Manuscripts a n d t h e i r f o c u s o n H e g e l ' s

Phenomenology w h i l e o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , L e f e b v r e s e e m s a l m o s t t o

r e j e c t t h e Science of Logic b a s e d o n M a r x 's c h a r a c te r iz a t io n o f H e g e l ' s

L o g i c a s t h e m o n e y o f t h e s pi ri t. I n t h is s e n se , L e f e b v r e ' s r e a d i n g o f

H e g e l is s o m e w h a t d i f fe r e n t f r o m t h a t o f L e ni n . I n a d d it io n , L e f e b v r e

e x p r e s s e s g r e a t r e s e r v a t i o n s a b o u t H e g e l ' s c e n t r a l c a t e g o r y , n e g a t i o n o f


22/51

1 K E V I N A N D E R S O N

the negation, something which Stalinist philosophers have attacked

incessantly, as have the Althusserians in the more recent period.

Still other passages of

Dialectical Materialism

show the markedly

Hegelian character of Lefebvre's Marxism, as for example when he

describes Marx's historical materialism as "the unity of idealism and

materialism." (72) It is further suggested that Hegel's Science of Logic

was "rehabilitated" by Marx in 1858, after having been previously

rejected by him from 1844 on, as Marx worked on the Critique o f

Political Econ omy and Ca pital and wrote his well known letter to

Engels on having glanced through Hegel's

L o g i c 4 2

The last half of the

book exhibits a fairly obvious existentialist bent where, as against many

other interpreters such as Herbert Marcuse, 43 Lefebvre stresses that the

relation of nature to the human being is one of "fatality or brute

chance" (137), at least in the pre-industrial world.

Unfortunately, even though the political situation facing Lefebvre in

France did, at least as against Lukfics' situation inside Stalin's Russia,

permit both the publication and discussion of Lenin's Hegel Notebooks

as well as the elaboration of a Hegelian Marxism in part on their basis

in the book Dialectical M aterialism the years of their publication, 1938

and 1939, were hardly ones allowing for a very wide discussion. Soon

the Nazi occupation drove undergrotmd both Marxism and Lefebvre

personally.44 The discussion begun in 1938 and 1939 on Hegelian

Marxism, including the one on Lenin and Hegel, could and did emerge

with a new urgency only in the postwar period.

L E N I N A N D H E G E L I N F R A N C E 1 9 4 4 - - 5 3

The first substantial discussion of Lenin and Hegel in postwar France

was again by Lefebvre, in his 1947 book Lo giqu e formelle Logique

dialectique issued by the official Communist Party publishing house.

Originally conceived, according to the author, as part of an eight( )-

volume "treatise on dialectical materialism," this project was never

completed. Lefebvre wrote that the 1947 volume was based on lecture

notes for courses from the early 1930s. 45 Lefebvre discusses Lenin and

Hegel not in the main text but in a lengthy a p p e n d i x 46

The appendix begins with the well-known quote from Lenin's Hegel

Notebooks: "Aphorism: One cannot understand Marx's Capital and in


23/51

L E N I N , H E G E L A N D W E S T E R N M A R X IS M 1 01

p a r t i c u l a r i t s f i r s t c h a p t e r w i t h o u t h a v i n g s t u d i e d t he whole o f H e g e l 's

Logic. T h u s , a h a l f -c e n t u r y a f t e r M a r x , n o t o n e M a r x i st u n d e r s t o o d

M a r x " ( 2 2 7 ) L e f e b v r e a r g u e s t h a t " IT ]h is r e m a r k b y L e n i n i s e sp e c i a ll y

d i r e c t e d a g a in s t P l e k h a n o v " ( 2 2 7 ) w h o , L e n i n h a d w r i t t e n i n t h e s a m e

p a r t o f hi s N o t e b o o k s , h a d c r it i ci z e d i d ea li st p h i l o s o p h e r s " f r o m a

v u l g a r m a t e r i a l i s t p o i n t o f v ie w r a t h e r t h a n a d i a le c t ic a l m a t e r i a l is t

o n e . " ( 2 2 7 ) L e f e b v r e al so c a l le d a t t e n t io n t o t h e 1 9 2 2 s p e e c h b y L e n i n

r e c o m m e n d i n g t h e d i r e c t s t u d y o f H e g e l , c a ll in g t h e l a tt e r " L e n i n ' s

p h i l o s o p h i c a l t e s t a m e n t . " ( 2 2 8 )

I n t h is b o o k , L e f e b v r e a l so m a k e s l i m i t e d u s e o f L e n i n ' s e a r l i e r

Mater ia l i sm and Empir io-Cri t i c i sm

( 1 9 0 8 ) , v i ew i n g t h e 1 9 1 4 - - 1 5

H e g e l N o t e b o o k s a s b o t h a b r e a k a n d a c o n t i n u i t y w i t h th a t e a r ly w o r k .

( 2 3 1 ) O t h e r w r i t e r s s u c h a s D u n a y e v s k a y a h a v e s e e n i t a s a b r e a k w i t h

L e n i n ' s e a r l i e r w r i t i n g s , h o l d i n g t h a t L e n i n i n t e n d e d t h e a b o v e - c i t e d

c r i ti q u e o f " v u lg a r m a t e r i a l is m " t o a p p l y n o t o n l y t o P l e k h a n o v , b u t a l so

t o h is o w n e a r l y w o r k M ateriali sm an d Em pirio-Cri t ic ism. 47 Y e t t h e

c e n t r a l t h r u s t o f L e f e b v r e ' s a r g u m e n t h e r e is f o r a c r it ic a l r e c o v e r y b y

M a r x i s t s o f H e g e l ' s d i a l e c t ic :

These citations suffice to sh ow the great and profound character of dialectical mate-

rialism. W ithout ceasing to judge philosophical idealism (therefore w ithout falling into

an eclecticism, without m ixing together idealism an d materialism), it rehabilitates, in a

sense, this idealism ... Dialectical materialism absorbs idealism insofar as the latter

involves a content. O bje ctiv e idealism tends toward a thorough-going materialism.

Dialectical materialism does n ot oppose on e system atic doctrine to another. Resulting

from the unity of o bjective idealism and a thorough-going materialism, it g oes beyond

any u nilaterality. (236 )

H e r e L e f e b v r e s to p s s h o r t o f t h e s t a n d p o i n t c e n t r a l t o M a r x ' s 1844

Manuscr ip t s

o f a "n a t u r a li s m o r h u m a n i s m " w h i c h i s " d is ti n c t f r o m b o t h

i d e a l i s m a n d m a t e r i a l i s m , a n d c o n s t i t u t e s a t t h e s a m e t i m e t h e u n i f y i n g

t r u t h o f b o t h , '48 a s t a n d p o i n t t o w h i c h h e h a d s e e m e d c l o s e r i n hi s

Dialectical Materialism.

L e f e b v r e a l so t a k e s u p t h e w r it in g s o f H e g e l , E n g e l s a n d L e n i n o n

t h e f i n i t e a n d t h e i n f i n i t e , a n d o n u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d r e a s o n . H e s i n g l e s

o u t L e n i n ' s d i s c u s s io n o f t r a n s it i o n f r o m L o g i c t o N a t u r e a t t h e e n d o f

H e g e l ' s

Science o f Logic

q u o t i n g L e n i n ' s H e g e l N o t e b o o k s a s f o l l o w s :

" T h i s p h r a s e is v e r y r e m a r k a b l e . T r a n s i t i o n f r o m t h e l o g ic a l i d e a t o

N a t u r e . S t r e t c h i n g a h a n d t o m a t e r i a l i s m . E n g e l s w a s r i g h t : H e g e l ' s


24/51

1 0 2 K E V I N A N D E R S O N

s y s t e m is a m a t e r i a l is m t u r n e d u p s i d e d o w n . ( 2 5 8 ) F o l l o w i n g L e n i n ' s

a r g u m e n t i n th e N o t e b o o k s , L e f e b v r e co n n e c t s N a t u r e n o t o n l y t o

m a t e r i a l i s m , b u t al s o t o p r a c t i c e , e s p e c i a l l y t o s o c i a l p r a c t i c e : I t i s

e s s e n t i a l t o n o t e - - a n d L e n i n i n s i s t s s t r o n g l y o n t h i s p o i n t - - t h a t

p r a c t i c e a n d t h e c o n c e p t a r e th u s d e g r e e s , m o m e n t s o f t h o u g h t , w h i c h

t h e n r e c o g n i z e a n d r a ti o n a ll y l e g it im a t e d ia l ec t ic a l m e t h o d . ( 2 5 8 ) T h i s

e l e m e n t , p r a c t ic e , as w e h a v e s e e n , a ls o d r e w m u c h a t t e n t i o n f r o m

Luk~ics .

A s p a r t o f a p h i l o s o p h i c a l d e b a t e i n th e 1 9 4 0 s b e t w e e n E x i s t e n -

t ia li st s a n d M a r x i s ts , L e f e b v r e o c c a s i o n a l ly m e n t i o n s w h a t h e c o n s i d e r s

t o b e p o i n t s o f d i f fe r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e s e t w o p e r s p e c t iv e s . T h e f ir s t

p o i n t w h i c h h e b r i n g s u p i n th i s r e g a r d i s H e g e l ' s c o n c e p t o f i d e n t it y :

the principle of identity is necessary to the progression of the c ate go rie s. . . Th is is

why Hegel, even though abstractly, has s ho w n that con tradictory concepts are the

aspects o f a 'higher' unity. W ithout th is rationality, the Hegelian dialectic falls back to

the irrational level of a pseudo-dialectic and becom es, as with Heidegger, a metaphysics

of being and nothingness. (245)

W h i l e H e i d e g g e r i s t h e o n e a c t u a ll y n a m e d , a r e f e r e n c e t o J e a n - P a u l

S a r t r e ' s B e i n g a n d N o t h i n g n e s s ( 1 9 4 3 ) i s s t r o n g l y s u g g e s t e d . 49 A t a

l a t e r p o i n t i n h is a p p e n d i x , L e f e b v r e b ri n g s L e n i n ' s H e g e l N o t e b o o k s

d i r e c t l y i n t o t h e d e b a t e : N o t i c e h o w L e n i n , a s a g r e a t re a li s t, l e a v e s

a s i d e t h e d i s i l lu s i o n i n g [ d t s a b u s t s ] a n d s t r o n g l y ' e x i s t e n ti a l i s t' r e f l e c -

t i o n s b y H e g e l o n ' s o r r o w a n d f i n it u d e ' ( 2 7 9 ) i n t h e Logic

A s t o t h e r e la t iv e im p o r t a n c e o f th e t h r e e b o o k s w h i c h f o r m H e g e l' s

S c ie n c e o f L o g i c - - B e in g , E s s e n c e , a n d N o t i o n - - L e f e b v r e q u o t e s

E n g e l s , w r o n g l y a t t r ib u t i n g t h e p a s s ag e t o M a r x :

That the detail of his [Hegel's] philosophy of nature is full of n onsense I will of cou rse

gladly grant you , but his

real

philosophy of nature is to be found in the second part o f

the

Logic in

the theory o f Essence, the true core o f the w ho le doctrine. Th e mo dern

scientific theory of the interaction o f natural forces is, howev er, only another expression

or rather the positive proo f of Hegel 's argument about cause and eff ec t. . (280)

L e f e b v r e s e e m s t o f o l l o w E n g e l s ' l e a d i n g iv in g g re a t s t re s s t o t h e b o o k

o n E s s e n c e i n b o t h t h e a p p l ic a b il it y o f H e g e l ' s

S c i en c e o f L o g i c

t o

M a r x i s m a n d i n hi s v i e w o f i ts i m p o r t a n c e w i t h in L e n i n ' s H e g e l N o t e -

b o o k s A s w e w il l s e e w h e n w e d i sc u s s t h e d e b a t e s b e t w e e n R a y a

D u n a y e v s k a y a , C . L . R . J a m e s a n d G r a c e L e e o n t h i s i s s u e i n t h e U . S .

d u r i n g t h e 1 9 4 0 s , t h is p r o c e d u r e is q u e s t io n a b l e , g i v en th a t L e n i n


25/51


devoted more space in the Notebooks to Hegel's Doctrine of the Notion

than to Essence. Here Lefebvre ignores what he himself quoted earlier

from Lenin's treatment of the Doctrine of Notion in the

Science of

Logic where Lenin was surprised to find that the concluding chapter

on the Absolute Idea contained the least idealism and was devoted

instead to dialectical method. (234) In fact, far from this leading

Lefebvre into the final sections of the

Science of Logic

he remains very

hostile to what he considers to be Hegel's concept of the eternal and

the absolute. (247)

Much of Lefebvre's appendix is taken up with long quotes on the

dialectic from Hegel, Engels and Lenin, and occasionally from Marx.

These quotes often follow each other directly in the text, with only

footnotes indicating the source. This form of presentation stresses the

commonality of dialectical logic in Hegel and in the Marxian tradition.

The appendix ends on a rather pedestrian note, returning to the

scientistic materialism of Engels: Engels formulated

three

dialectical

laws: transformation of quantity into quality, and reciprocally -- inter-

penetration of opposites -- negation of the negation. (283) The doors

to a newer view of Marxism's relation to Hegel which had been opened

now seem to close, as the reader is returned to a far narrower concept

of dialectic, already well-known to official dialectical materialism. The

sense of doors closing becomes even stronger when Lefebvre then

quotes approvingly Stalin's fourth dialectical principle, universal

interdependence. (283) The doors appear to open slightly again when

Lefebvre concludes that since Stalin had added a fourth law of

dialectics, these differences show that the question of dialectical laws

remains an open question. (284) Lefebvre adds provisionally a fifth

law of dialectics, that of development in a spiral. (284) But in the end

no real contrast has been drawn to Engels' or even Stalin's mechanistic

concepts of dialectics. With the five dialectical laws of Engels, Stalin

and Lefebvre, the reader is left wondering why it is necessary to return

to Hegel directly at all, or even to Lenin's Hegel Notebooks.

A second major

anderson1992.pdf

Documents

Transcript of anderson1992.pdf