I don't think that Marx would have thought that marxism would need legitimacy. Since the end stage of history would involve a withering of the state, and an end for the need for legitimisation. The only other Marxist state that might need legitimising would be the period of socialism between capitalism and communism. And I don't know but it seems to me that that would be legitimised by the fact that it is (meant to be) a peoples mass movement. And also that it is only a temporary arrangement.
Well, as you say it's all temporary, It is the end goal of historical realization which makes the whole thing legitimate, if not in the traditional democratic sense, then certainly at least within the Marxist framework. Marxism without historicism isn't Marxism at all.
Very helpful, that clarifies a lot. I like that you come at this question on Marx by looking at Hegel. It seems whenever any of the Hegelians are discussed (not only Marx, but Stirner and Feuerbach too) Hegel is surprisingly absent. And when he is discussed it is not so much to understand the Hegelian on the basis of an interest in and knowledge of Hegel but vice versa, exempli gratia Peter Singer's introduction.
Maybe Singer would say I have some "silly obscurantist" reading of Hegel. But I don't think you can look at Hegel as an analytic philosopher, and I don't think you can look at Marx without looking at Hegel.
From the small amount I know on the subject I agree. And, indeed, it would be equally mistaken to look at any of the (at least early) Hegelians as analytic philosophers; that kind of appropriation can lead to all kinds of confusions.
I don't think that Marx would have thought that marxism would need legitimacy. Since the end stage of history would involve a withering of the state, and an end for the need for legitimisation. The only other Marxist state that might need legitimising would be the period of socialism between capitalism and communism. And I don't know but it seems to me that that would be legitimised by the fact that it is (meant to be) a peoples mass movement. And also that it is only a temporary arrangement.
Malthus0 2 years ago
Well, as you say it's all temporary, It is the end goal of historical realization which makes the whole thing legitimate, if not in the traditional democratic sense, then certainly at least within the Marxist framework. Marxism without historicism isn't Marxism at all.
manwaring 2 years ago
you welcome
Jkelquedi 2 years ago
very interesting response
Jkelquedi 2 years ago
thanks.
manwaring 2 years ago
Very helpful, that clarifies a lot. I like that you come at this question on Marx by looking at Hegel. It seems whenever any of the Hegelians are discussed (not only Marx, but Stirner and Feuerbach too) Hegel is surprisingly absent. And when he is discussed it is not so much to understand the Hegelian on the basis of an interest in and knowledge of Hegel but vice versa, exempli gratia Peter Singer's introduction.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
Maybe Singer would say I have some "silly obscurantist" reading of Hegel. But I don't think you can look at Hegel as an analytic philosopher, and I don't think you can look at Marx without looking at Hegel.
manwaring 2 years ago
From the small amount I know on the subject I agree. And, indeed, it would be equally mistaken to look at any of the (at least early) Hegelians as analytic philosophers; that kind of appropriation can lead to all kinds of confusions.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago