| Summary: | <p>In my thesis, I discuss the dispute between Hegel and Marx over whether or not the state is necessary for human freedom. According to Hegel, the state is necessary for such freedom because he believed that humans require a family life for love and support, but as family life is characterized by natural necessity, it cannot be truly free. Therefore, beyond family life, there must be a civil society where individuals approach one another as self-sufficient beings fully conscious of their independence from one another. But this atomistic relation of individuals to one another within civil society then requires that the state exist beyond it as an institution in which the interests of these different individuals are unified into one will in order to return unity to society. However, Marx believed that the state is incompatible with social freedom because it is an institution for the rule of one class over another rather than a general will for society. </p> <p>My thesis will discuss the opposition between Marx and Hegel with special reference to Hegel’s 'Elements of the Philosophy of Right' and Marx’s 'Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right,' 'Civil War in France' and 'Critique of the Gotha Programme.' First I will present Hegel’s theory of why the state is necessary for human freedom and then I will present a critique of Hegel’s theory of the rational society. I will then explain Marx’s theory of the state and why Marx believed the state is incompatible with social freedom. Then I will defend Marx’s position against Hegel by arguing that social freedom does not require the state because it is possible for a mediated substantial unity (a unity between individuals in which they still also recognise themselves as particulars) to exist even without the state. </p>
|
|---|