The issue is the anachronistic attempt to stretch Hegel into Marx's world. There is a continuity between Hegel and Marx, in the same way that there is continuity of Smith and Marx, but there is also change and that is buried. This is why Radnik regularly presumes the breakdown of cooperation that only comes to fore with Marx and then rejigs Hegel's account in the Philosophy of Right to turn it into a quasi-criticism (not critique!) of the so-called "market economy" (industrial production is the liquidation of the market, whereas Radnik turns Hegel back into the Millennial, nay Naomi Klein, complaint about "freedom to choose" being not free). What would have to be accounted is how Hegel seems to return post-Hegel, a question that Marx was already asking in terms of the disintegration of Hegelianism. One has to ask about the conditions of possibility of Hegel's account of of the modern form of the Idea seeming to persist as a criticism after it seems to also be realized in practice (Marx in 1843: "As far as real life is concerned, it is precisely the political state - in all its modern forms - which, even where it is not yet consciously imbued with socialist demands, contains the demands of reason. And the political state does not stop there. Everywhere it assumes that reason has been realised. But precisely because of that it everywhere becomes involved in the contradiction between its ideal function and its real prerequisites.") Otherwise, this is not dialectical but to use a favorite of Hegel, "abstract." Backward projection. It is not choosing between A, B, and C that Hegel "hates" (14:20), because the self-determination is not necessarily at the individual person's level but at the level of the speculative subject (Society). Because the content behind "self-determination" is not immediate, subjective but from the Idea. This is why one might be compelled to do something or face some limitation that they do not immediately, personally desire but could be in the interest of the Geist (and therefore, the substantial Spirit). That would just be classic bourgeois - Smith, Kant, Hegel, etc. It is behind Smith's justification of surplus-labor, which plays a part in influencing Hegel when he reads Smith in Jena. In fact, all of a sudden Radnik (and Doug following him) seem to forget about the first 14 minutes of their conversation and turn it back into solipsism about individual's desiring things in their head and then facing the external world's limitation (as if you have to wait for Hegel to know that??). That's why the opening discussion about freedom as "doing what you want" is far-below what Hegel meant. Hegel's concern in his critique of subjective determinations of Freedom post-French Revolution was about the romantic side of the Jacobins e.g., Saint Mably and Saint-Juste. It was about how modern bourgeois individuals are more free than was explicitly recognized and the French Revolution collapsed on this basis (hence Hegel famously saying With Us moderns, as opposed to Oriental and Greek Society, "all are free" in the philosophy of history). Hegel is turned into a social-democrat. No.
Hegel wasn't a social Democrat. That would be anachronistic. But he was a republican and his philosophy contains elements which offer a kind of communitarian critique of free markets.
@Professor_Pink not communitarian but standard, liberal critique and actually not even beyond the one Smith already gave in the 18th century (despite Hegel's unfair delegation of Smith to civil society in Philosophy of Right- Hegel's contemporaries pointed out this was wrong). The account of civil society presupposes the externalization of will in labor, property, morality- markets are just a manifestation. Markets have always existed but not bourgeois right. There is a reason why Marx notes in the Grundrisse that the vulgar affirmation/condemnation is question-begging.
You’re free to pay the market price for whatever sexual acts are for sale. It’s funny that men will pay to rent a literal hole (that is, to pay for the LACK of an object!). Obviously women are smarter than us.
First of all, "love market" is a truly horrible phrase, can or should love be marketed? Secondly, if we accept your phrase, a market is not something under your control, but is engineered and manipulated by outside forces, limiting and controlling your range of choices. There's no self-determination there.
Don't try to raise a family or get a mortgage with the threat of corporate sale of your employment, sudden transfers, random schedule changes, wage freezes, less than two weeks paid holidays, and abusive managers. Just don't do it.
Don’t reproduce under any circumstances, don’t subject anymore people to needles suffering simply to fulfill your joy or biological urges. We are not animals, nor should we be savages given to making choices on our most base drives and desires.
Don’t procreate! It’s deeply unethical to subject even more Humans to lifelong suffering, just to bring you some temporary “joy” or fulfill some vague biological imperative. We are not animals, let us at least behave _as if_ we are ethical Subjects with minds and Reason, who need not follow every drive/desire through, no matter how base or morally irresponsible.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Really gives Cutrone’s notion of bourgeois freedom some clarity.
The issue is the anachronistic attempt to stretch Hegel into Marx's world. There is a continuity between Hegel and Marx, in the same way that there is continuity of Smith and Marx, but there is also change and that is buried.
This is why Radnik regularly presumes the breakdown of cooperation that only comes to fore with Marx and then rejigs Hegel's account in the Philosophy of Right to turn it into a quasi-criticism (not critique!) of the so-called "market economy" (industrial production is the liquidation of the market, whereas Radnik turns Hegel back into the Millennial, nay Naomi Klein, complaint about "freedom to choose" being not free).
What would have to be accounted is how Hegel seems to return post-Hegel, a question that Marx was already asking in terms of the disintegration of Hegelianism. One has to ask about the conditions of possibility of Hegel's account of of the modern form of the Idea seeming to persist as a criticism after it seems to also be realized in practice (Marx in 1843: "As far as real life is concerned, it is precisely the political state - in all its modern forms - which, even where it is not yet consciously imbued with socialist demands, contains the demands of reason. And the political state does not stop there. Everywhere it assumes that reason has been realised. But precisely because of that it everywhere becomes involved in the contradiction between its ideal function and its real prerequisites.")
Otherwise, this is not dialectical but to use a favorite of Hegel, "abstract."
Backward projection.
It is not choosing between A, B, and C that Hegel "hates" (14:20), because the self-determination is not necessarily at the individual person's level but at the level of the speculative subject (Society). Because the content behind "self-determination" is not immediate, subjective but from the Idea. This is why one might be compelled to do something or face some limitation that they do not immediately, personally desire but could be in the interest of the Geist (and therefore, the substantial Spirit). That would just be classic bourgeois - Smith, Kant, Hegel, etc. It is behind Smith's justification of surplus-labor, which plays a part in influencing Hegel when he reads Smith in Jena.
In fact, all of a sudden Radnik (and Doug following him) seem to forget about the first 14 minutes of their conversation and turn it back into solipsism about individual's desiring things in their head and then facing the external world's limitation (as if you have to wait for Hegel to know that??).
That's why the opening discussion about freedom as "doing what you want" is far-below what Hegel meant.
Hegel's concern in his critique of subjective determinations of Freedom post-French Revolution was about the romantic side of the Jacobins e.g., Saint Mably and Saint-Juste. It was about how modern bourgeois individuals are more free than was explicitly recognized and the French Revolution collapsed on this basis (hence Hegel famously saying With Us moderns, as opposed to Oriental and Greek Society, "all are free" in the philosophy of history).
Hegel is turned into a social-democrat. No.
thx for your thoughts! Makes good sense ,to me.
Hegel wasn't a social Democrat. That would be anachronistic. But he was a republican and his philosophy contains elements which offer a kind of communitarian critique of free markets.
@Professor_Pink not communitarian but standard, liberal critique and actually not even beyond the one Smith already gave in the 18th century (despite Hegel's unfair delegation of Smith to civil society in Philosophy of Right- Hegel's contemporaries pointed out this was wrong). The account of civil society presupposes the externalization of will in labor, property, morality- markets are just a manifestation. Markets have always existed but not bourgeois right. There is a reason why Marx notes in the Grundrisse that the vulgar affirmation/condemnation is question-begging.
Good one 👍
In ancient Rome
There was a poem
About a dog
Who found two bones
He picked at one
He licked the other
He went in circles
He dropped dead
We are not men. We are Devo.
ua-cam.com/video/dVGINIsLnqU/v-deo.htmlsi=oHZ-2sOAUyS3LZLz
Yes, freedom and unfreedom. Marcuse says this in one dim man
In the love market is there no freedom ?
You’re free to pay the market price for whatever sexual acts are for sale. It’s funny that men will pay to rent a literal hole (that is, to pay for the LACK of an object!). Obviously women are smarter than us.
First of all, "love market" is a truly horrible phrase, can or should love be marketed?
Secondly, if we accept your phrase, a market is not something under your control, but is engineered and manipulated by outside forces, limiting and controlling your range of choices. There's no self-determination there.
@@anti-thesis Love market is a truly horrible phrase. I meant my comment to be ironic. Marriage market my be less horrible phrase ?
Don't try to raise a family or get a mortgage with the threat of corporate sale of your employment, sudden transfers, random schedule changes, wage freezes, less than two weeks paid holidays, and abusive managers. Just don't do it.
do it anyway ... poor people all over the world have families
Don't restrict yourself from engaging in one of the most joyous and meaningful activities a human can engage in! Children are a joy.
Don’t reproduce under any circumstances, don’t subject anymore people to needles suffering simply to fulfill your joy or biological urges. We are not animals, nor should we be savages given to making choices on our most base drives and desires.
Don’t procreate! It’s deeply unethical to subject even more Humans to lifelong suffering, just to bring you some temporary “joy” or fulfill some vague biological imperative. We are not animals, let us at least behave _as if_ we are ethical Subjects with minds and Reason, who need not follow every drive/desire through, no matter how base or morally irresponsible.
Down with The Conspiracy Against the Human Race!