Roswell Political Theory

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Hegel vs. Marx




Which do you like better, Hegel's Dialectic or Marx's Materialist Conception of History? Explain your answer.

posted by Socrates3000 at 7:56 AM

22 Comments:

  • I would have to say I like Marx's idea better. I definitely agree with the fact that in order for a society to advance then they would have to have some sort of cultural or technological advancement.

    By Blogger chad_mcdermott, at 2:43 PM  

  • I agree with Marx's idea that society as well as history is propelled by production and economic change. There's countless examples in history that show changes in industry signifying a change in class as well. The change from Feudalism to mercantilism, and the repercussions of the Industrial Revolution all prove Marx's belief of materialistic conception.

    By Blogger kristinmcfar, at 4:49 PM  

  • I like Marx's idea of the Materialist Conception of History better than Hegel's. I definitely think that the physical world, not ideas or even philosophies, propel history.

    By Blogger courtsport007, at 5:22 PM  

  • I agree with Marx' idea that the world changes as the economic status of it changes. People like to say that money isnt everything but without money what can you do ? Where can you go ? What can you change ?

    By Blogger domdotcom, at 5:58 PM  

  • I would have to agree with Marx's conception because although ideas are important, the ideas need to be physically carried out to progress. With this being said, production and change is critical when evolving.

    By Blogger jhallowell, at 6:21 PM  

  • I would agree with Marx's idea. His thought that there is more of a materialistic conception is much more evident and accurate than Hegels, throughout history you can see this. The economy and growth of industry impact people and classes. Therfore, the physical world itself is what advances us, not the ideas behind them.

    By Blogger ktlown, at 6:25 PM  

  • I definitely agree with Marx's Materialist Conception of History. All major technological advances have ushered in new eras, each with its own social stratification, set of values and ideology, from the Agricultural Revolution and the Neolithic Era to the invention of the internet and the so-called Information Age we live in.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:34 PM  

  • I definitley agree with Karl Marx's theory that hisory is propelled by changes in modes of production. New technology creates new classes, new laws, and new governments even. Industrilization changes society, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worst. Either way, I believe that history is affected more by the tangible changes in modes of prodection rather than just ideas.

    By Blogger Katie_Dunn, at 6:49 PM  

  • I agree with Marx's idea because i believe that it is economic advances that propels history, not ideas. Material things such as the internet and the cotton gin have propelled history and made our society more and more advanced. if no one made any of these advances society wouldn't have come half as far as we are today.

    By Blogger suzieq:), at 6:54 PM  

  • The answer is that neither Hegel nor Marx was completely correct, or maybe they both were. What more accurately happens, is that both are needed to propel a society forward. America was founded on the ideas that came out of the enlightenment, but the founding of America happened due to real economic troubles of the colonies. Material problems lead to the opportunity for development, but without ideas, there would be no problem solving. The ideas are what is needed to be done, and the materialism is how it is done.

    By Blogger PG-13, at 8:30 PM  

  • I would have to say I agree with Karl Marx's conception of history. He made a good point by stating taht you must have a culutural or technological movement to adcance in history, which is true. The Industrial Revolution proves that. Without most of the things that were invented druing that time period America most likely wouldnt be as technologically advanced as we are today.

    By Blogger @darien_isaac, at 4:32 AM  

  • I favor Hegel's Dialectic over Marx's Materialist Conception of History. This is primarily because ideas as the root cause of the advancement of production, and thus the idea must be initially present. Technology does not arise from what already exists, but rather from what we need and what we desire. As a result, as ideas spread out across borders, history is written because individuals race to develop and enhance the idea first. We see this as Hitler proclaimed to the German people that the Jews are to blame for Germany's suffering and as North Koreans rallied around communism. Besides, North Korea serves to demonstrate that production is not always what drives their history since they thrive on the idea of power, not on the production of goods. After all, ideas can exist without products, while products cannot exist without ideas.

    By Blogger John, at 12:56 PM  

  • This comment has been removed by the author.

    By Blogger John, at 12:58 PM  

  • Although I don't think that one philosopher was 100% correct and that both theories are right in their own respect, I believe that Hegel's was more spot on and influential. Marx's theory rejects the role of abstract concepts in history. Yes, history is helped along by industrial developments, but these developments are actually propelled on the basis that opposing ideas are compromised upon. In industry, some believe that the opportunity to create should be placed back into the hands of the cobbler, while others believe that machines should do was much of the work as possible. Nowadays, we are heavily aided by machines but man still has a tremendous impact on the production of the shoe and the cobbler still takes part in the design of the shoe. He, as a an artisan, can still be proud of his creation. Therefore, Hegel's idea is far more encompassing. Even the idea of history being centered around class struggles is Hegelian. No one class can take full and perpetual control. Each group has its own thesis and these theses battle each other and smaller groups constantly come to and fall from power, an unending production of syntheses.

    By Blogger Groovey2Shoes, at 2:48 PM  

  • I find myself kind of agreeing with Marx's view of materialistic conception of history because I think it is more the invention, rather that the idea, that matters more in the long run. I think that changes in manufacturing effect history more than the ideas behind them because there are countless "ideas" that have never actually became something. Its the actual the inventions that have come to be.

    By Blogger smayhew93, at 3:42 PM  

  • I agree with Marx's conception that the material world is what matters in history. Although Hegelian dialect has a point in that ideas are necessary, without the material representation of these ideas there would be no worldy progress. Changes in economics is what makes a society move forward and without these changes we would be stuck in one way of life.

    By Blogger SNathans93, at 10:18 PM  

  • Hegel's dialectic form has some merit but lieu of the physical changes wrought by physical objects rather than ideas I would have to agree more with Marx's version of history. Ideas may conceive the physical product, invention, or system but it is the application of these ideas that produce change. An idea without a means of touching the world would remain only an idea without much influence over anything other than the way people act. Economic changes create quite a bit more change because instead of an idea being specific to one area of human life economics can spill into every part of life; how information is exchanged, how countries interact, what is necessitated within a culture. It is the physical elements of history that cause change. Marx's conception of history is much more appealing to me in this way

    By Blogger Lauren Telschow, at 10:33 PM  

  • I would have to say that out of the two, Marx's concept on social class struggle throughout history is more accurate. Marx talks about how from the middle ages to the enlightenment era and even up to the point when Marx published his work. He mentions that when the feudal system fell two classes were then created. Even though I do not agree with pure communism, becuase there isn't away everyone will be willing to share their wealth, (as a species we are too selfish) but thehistory of social classes is sound.

    By Blogger unidentified formulated onoma, at 7:10 AM  

  • I agree with marx more because of his theory that history is based on class conflict and also with his belief, contradicting that of plato's, that the physical objects in the world are more important than those mere ideas we have in our heads.

    By Blogger cwatson, at 7:52 AM  

  • I like Marx's philosophy better becuase it is much more realistic. I agree with the fact that production shapes history rather than ideas.

    By Blogger dking2022, at 3:03 PM  

  • Marx's theory is more accurate because it is the modes of production and transport, physical things, that control events in our time and therefore create history. Ideas mean nothing without possible physical representations. Yes it takes an idea to make a physical thing but an impossible idea will mean nothing in the physical world. If interchangeable parts was just an idea it would not effect anything, but because it was implemented it changed history. So I agree that marx is correct in his theory.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 3:21 PM  

  • In my opinion, I prefer Hagel's Dialect, because everything that we create is started by ideas. Even Marx's concept wouldn't exist, or become a reality, without the ideas in Hagel's Dialect. All advances in industry begin with an idea and that's why I side with Hagel.

    By Blogger football42, at 8:41 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home