Was Hegel right? Capitalism and the Creative class

The problem of making an all inclusive mutual content of Marx and Hegel, is that in material dialectic, unlike with Hegel, there is no apex, a final synthesis, drawing upward the broad, complex redundant underbelly of confusing temporal human, all to human mass, instead in Marx the reverse is true, an ever widening ever complexive yet paradoxically entropically meaningless surge into appearing chaos.

This chaos is embraced only peripherally, and contradictory meshed with the hope for a deepening understanding.

That is the problem, when the two triangles are can not congrue , but tipped tipped to tip, hoping some kind of synergy to pass through them. The model presented above suffers this lack of synergy, through misalignment, misplacing the channels through which the elan may turn into synthesis.

By the way: One can try to apply the dialectic process to Hegel’s dialectic itself. If we say that Hegel’s dialectic is anti-analytic and the analytic philosophy anti-dialectic, then there are thesis and antithesis in two ways, but we do not really know which one of them starts at first as thesis. Starting at first is an advantage. So which one is the one with that advantage? If we will never know this, then we will have to state that both remain just opposites, because it would be unfair to say this or that one starts at first. But, in that case, it is also problematic to say what the synthesis is. The first one (thesis) with the advantage will always say that the second one (antithesis) is somehow “false” or “evil” , so that the first one will always make a major contribution to the synthesis.

Presumably, then, whichever comes first is the thesis.
But if either can be held to come first, then whichever comes first is the thesis.

Sounds like the cliche, 'who is on first, who is on third?

But in reality, this is precisely the problem Marx could not deal with in Hegel, for the question rests on the abandonment of duality by Marx. His understanding did not meets the level of this presumption, thus the eventual failure of Marxism.

My point is that it is not theoretically decidable who is on first, because, apparently, that decision is given by history (resp. evolution) itself, and that means by powerful people (resp. nature).

Dialectic processes are not nonsense, because they really happen. So they are, philosophically said, ontological, thus not only logical.

One of the most interesting questions is: What was first: war and disharmony or peace and harmony?

I’m sure an anthropologist could trace and/or ascertain that.

Did becoming sentient cause our warring nature, or was it already present and active before that time? They would need to study the first human civilisation settlements to answer that.

Perhaps it started once tribes joined forces and had strength in numbers… perhaps?

Another possibility is to give the advantage to the second one, the antithesis, for example to the dictatorship of the proletariat - as we know not only from history. Principally, everyone and not only egalitarianists like the communists, can “argue” in this way.

In this example, the (advocates of the) unproductives ones “argue” as if they were the (advocates of the) productive ones, and the (advocates of the) real poroductive ones argue in the same way: They are exploited. But only the productive ones are right, because they (and only they!) pay taxes, and, moreover, the unproductive ones are paid by this taxes. The taxpayers (and only the taxpayers) are exploited by those who do not pay taxes, and this are not only poor people but also very rich people.

A lioness (for example), although not capable of counting, ascertains the absence of one of the cubs.

And if you want to rhetorically misuse these polemical two (thesis and antithesis), you merely have to jump into the synthesis as the smiling third by supporting the thesis and pretending that the antithesis is considered too, although in reality the antithesis is much more suppressed than considered.

(The polemical two are certainly misused, because we live in an era of much misuse.)

however we want to call social systems, there are only 2 possibilities: centralization (coercion) or DEcentralization (non coercion) , and all what we have gotten for 4K years is much of the same: centralization which ultimately brings about oligarchy and serfdom.

There is a synthesis between decentralization and centralization: the hypocritical oligarc, who out of spinelessness either magnifies his ill gotten power, or cynically masks it to portray a benevolent modest lover of humanity. And such a person likes to call himself the right person in compromising situations.
Nothing farther from the truth, they are usually shallow and deceptive.

There’s territorial and then there’s TERRITORIAL, and war is the latter. Lands were fought over for centuries only to be handed back to the original peoples, but not until many lives were needlessly lost in the process.

A decentralization is alraedy a synthesis between centralization (thesis) and anticentralizaition (antitheisis). Take a political example: The current Germany has a decentralized structure, whereas the current France has a centralized structure. Both have one national capital, which means centralization, and smaller capitals of Bundesländer or Départements, which means decentralization. The difference is that the power is more decentralized in Germany and more centralized in France. But no one of the both is anticentralized (thus: antithetical to centralization).

sorry, your words prove the intellectual masturbation that has become philosophy.
Coercion or NO coercion are the absolute bottom line, all the rest is superfluous and dualistic digressions by/for people who do not grasp (or think they can ignore or bypass) the natural and Immutable Law of Polarity.

the less coercion in a society the more peace

mainstream sciences, philosophy and sociology are about to go down the drain, they all have caused the moral and material bankruptcy of the planet

what is the hegelian dialectic again: problem, reaction, solution… create the problem, wait for the reaction then present the solution already concocted ??? Yeah hegel was right. Another one that just helped the world go from bad to worse.

@ All.

Is Jesus 100% responsible for everything the churches have done after him in his name?
Are Jesus’ apostles and evangelists 100% responsible for everything the churches have done after them in his name?

No.

Is Hegel 100% responsibe for everything certain people of politics, media, and economy have done after him in his name?
Are all Hegelians 100% responsible for everything certain people of politics, media, and economics have done after him in his name?

No.

Realizing ourselves during burial efforts was the first attempt at fantasizing about the negation of death, destruction and warfare. Has peace and harmony really existed as physical forms, as something we know? This fantasy is our divergence from nature, hiding away from trauma and death by idealizing its significance, idealizing an afterlife, the longing for its negation (peace, harmony, happiness, etc.). Dialectical materialism confounded in Zizek’s object/ideology and Deleuze’s Anti-Oedipus offer some interesting insights. There is an antagonism against ‘nature’ because of our nature, our sublime contradiction. There is never balance, only a fetish for equilibrium. Hegel was right, but Marx was not (Marx still had some good stuff to say though).

Maybe he was wrong maybe he was right but he was definitely something.

In what way was Hegel right and Marx not… on this matter?

The younger Marx was right, but the older Marx was not right because of his change from philosophy to political economy. Marx became wrong when he became more political / politico-economic than philosophical.