nach oben

Erschienen in:

2018 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

2. The Philosophical ‘Moment’ of Marx’s Theory of Democracy: From the Metaphysics of Law to the Critique of Politics

verfasst von : Alexandros Chrysis

Erschienen in: ‘True Democracy’ as a Prelude to Communism

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This chapter focuses on Marx as a university student. Starting from Marx’s letter to his father (10 November 1837), I follow his journey from what he defined as the ‘metaphysics of law’ to his critique of the state. I consider both Marx’s readings of ancient Greek philosophy and his extracts from Spinoza’s Theologico-Political Treatise. Moving within the frame of the philosophical conflict between the Historical School of Law, as represented especially by Savigny, and the Hegelian Philosophy of Right, as defended by Gans, I draw attention to the impact this conflict exerted on the young Marx’s theory of politics. Finally, taking into account Bruno Bauer’s ‘Der christliche Staat und unsere Zeit’ as a crucial document for the intellectual relation between Bauer and Marx, I conclude that, although Marx was not yet ready to compose a theory of democracy, he was already able to conceive the philosophical principle of autonomy, not as an a priori/normative Idea, but in close connection with the social and political milieu of his time.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Themes and Methodological Delimitations

Nächstes Kapitel The Republican ‘Moment’ of Marx’s Theory of Democracy: From the Critique of Politics to the Theory of the Rational State

For a precise picture of the historical, socio-economic, cultural and political circumstances of the time, see Cornu (1958, vol. I, pp. 3–48), Lacascade (2002, pp. 21–52) and McLellan (1980, pp. 1–23).

In Heine’s own words (1882, pp. 171–2), the authors of the Young Germany school:

draw no line between practical life and authorship; they do not separate politics from science, art from religion, and they are simultaneously artists, tribunes, and apostles. I repeat the word apostles, for I know no more appropriate word. A new religion thrills them with a fervor of which the authors of an earlier period had no conception. It is the faith in progress, – a faith founded on knowledge.

Engels, ‘Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy’, in Marx–Engels, Collected Works, vol. 26, p. 357. Engels soon began criticising the current of Young Germany, his most characteristic piece being ‘Alexander Jung: Lectures on Modern German Literature’, published in 1842 in Deutsche Jahrbücher für Wissenschaft und Kunst (Marx–Engels, Collected Works, vol. 2, pp. 284–97). For Engels’s rupture with the movement of Young Germany, see Oizerman (1981, pp. 147–53).

See the interesting article by Mayer and Zipes (1973).

See Hunt (1975, vol. I, p. 26), although on the same page we read: ‘Yet the intensely political writing which immediately follow Marx’s university years, in the Rheinische Zeitung period, cannot have emerged from a perfect vacuum.’

For Marx’s student years in Berlin and the lifestyle in the city in this period, see the fascinating narrative by Miller and Sawadzki (1956, pp. 35–115).

For a concise but comprehensive review of the content of Marxian notes during the period 1839–41, see the ‘Introduction by the Editors of K. Marx—F. Engels, Exzerpte und Notizen bis 1842’, included in Marx–Engels, Gesamtausgabe (MEGA ₂), IV, 1, pp. 13*–22*.

It is worth noting that many years later, in a letter to Lassalle dated 21 December 1857, in which he refers to the objectives of his studies during those years, Marx lets us assume that the motivation of his studies were political rather than philosophical.

Marx, ‘Letter to his Father, November 10[–11, 1837]’, in Marx–Engels, Collected Works, vol. 1, pp. 10–21.

Ibid., p. 18. Marx sets out the distance separating the two poles not only in the letter to his father, in which he clearly stands by the Hegelian perspective, but also somewhat earlier, in one of his epigrams, when he presents Hegel admitting that: ‘Kant and Fichte soar to heaven blue/Seeking for some distant land,/I but seek to grasp profound and true/That which—in the street I find’ (Marx–Engels, Collected Works, vol. 1, p. 577).

Marx, ‘Letter to his Father, 10[–11, November 1837]’, in Marx–Engels, Collected Works, vol. 1, p. 18.

Ibid., p. 12 (emphasis added).

According to an accurate formulation by Mah (1987, p. 164), this relates to Marx’s transition from romantic to realistic idealism.

Marx, ‘Letter to his Father, November 10[–11, 1837]’, in Marx–Engels, Collected Works, vol. 1, p. 18.

According to Megill (2002, pp. 14–35), who attempts to answer the question of the Hegelian works through which Marx turned towards dialectics, there is no indication that Marx as a student had read The Phenomenology of Spirit or Science of Logic ‘attentively’ (p. 17). Further, Megill argues that Marx’s first contact with the texts of Hegelian philosophy during the period in question was through his study of the Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences, and especially Hegel’s Lectures on the History of Philosophy.

There are a number of very interesting narratives about Marx’s studies in Bonn and Berlin; see, among others, Cornu (1958, vol. 1, especially pp. 67–112), McLellan (1980, pp. 40–71; 1995, especially pp. 13–32) and Mehring (1983, pp. 30–47).

Hegel (1991, p. 21).

Megill (2002, p. 3).

For a critical review of the relationship between Fichte’s philosophy and the Hegelian Left, including Marx himself, see Rockmore (1980, pp. 121–44).

See Garaudy (1976, pp. 33–43, particularly the comment in the note on p. 35).

Marx’s distancing from philosophical subjectivism, such as that of Fichte, becomes clear in the ‘Notebook Z’ of the draft material of the Marxian doctoral dissertation, ‘The Difference Between Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature’, in Collected Works, vol. 1, p. 494. In the same vein, see Cornu (1954, p. 68). See also the notes of the editors of MEGA ₂, who make use of this remark in order to point out how far the young Marx is from the ‘extreme individualistic’ and ‘voluntaristic’ ideas of other Young Hegelians (I, 1, p. 65*; IV, 1, pp. 17*–19*).

Garaudy (1976, pp. 38–9).

See Fichte (1987, pp. 67–8, emphasis added):

Your vocation is not merely to know, but to act according to your knowledge. This is what I clearly hear in my inmost soul as soon as I collect myself for a moment and pay attention to myself. You do not exist for idle self-observation or to brood over devout sensations. No, you exist for activity. Your activity, and your activity alone, determines your worth.

Fichte (1988, pp. 173–4).

Marx, ‘The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature’, in Marx–Engels, Collected Works, vol. 1, p. 86.

Ibid., p. 30.

Ibid., p. 491.

Ibid., p. 85.

Ibid., p. 491. Marx takes a similar position on the practical role of philosophy as an ‘intellectual quintessence of its time’ a bit later as a columnist on Rheinische Zeitung (see in particular Marx, ‘The Leading Article in No. 179 of the Kӧlnische Zeitung’, in Marx–Engels, Collected Works, vol. 1, pp. 195–6).

Lifshitz (1973, pp. 23–4).

Ibid., p. 24.

Marx, ‘The Difference Between Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature’, in Marx–Engels, Collected Works, vol. 1, p. 62.

Lifshitz (1973, pp. 28–9).

Ibid., p. 29.

Ibid., p. 30.

Marx, ‘The Difference Between Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature’, in Marx–Engels, Collected Works, vol. 1, p. 73.

Marx–Engels, ‘The German Ideology’, in Marx–Engels, Collected Works, vol. 5, p. 141. See also the first notebook of the dissertation (Marx–Engels, Collected Works, vol. 1, pp. 409–10).

In a similar vein, see Oizerman (1981, pp. 49–50 and footnotes).

On the theory of a democratic polity, see in particular Chaps. 4 and 8 of the first book of Aristotle’s Rhetoric.

The material for Marx’s review of Spinoza’s Theological-Political Treatise, as well as similar material from Spinoza’s correspondence, which Marx also reads, are included in MEGA ₂, IV, 1, pp. 233–51, 252–76. It is worth noting that the editors of MEGA ₂ take as a given that Marx had sufficient knowledge of Spinoza’s ethics (MEGA ₂, IV, 1, p. 21*).

Spinoza (1951, p. 200).

Ibid., pp. 202–3.

Ibid., p. 205.

Ibid., p. 206.

Ibid., p. 259.

Ibid., p. 258, 263.

The validity of this hypothesis could additionally be reinforced by the fact that Marx gave the following title to the relevant material: ‘Spinoza’s Theologisch-politischer Tractat von Karl Heinrich Marx. Berlin. 1841’.

Rubel (1977).

Igoln (1977).

For Marx’s certificates of study and grades at the Universities of Bonn and Berlin, see Marx–Engels, Collected Works, vol. 1, pp. 657–59, 703–4.

Jaeger (1967, p. 67).

See, among others, Cornu (1958, pp. 79ff.) and Miller and Sawadzki (1956, pp. 35–44).

For a concise appraisal of the transition of the ‘very young’ Marx from the ‘metaphysics of law’ to the critique of politics and political economy, see Kelley (1978).

See, among others, the critical analysis by Hook (1962, pp. 135–44).

This is a phrase from Savigny’s introductory text for the edition Zeitschrift für Geschichtliche Rechtswissenschaft (Berlin, 1815, p. 4).

Savigny (2002 [1814], pp. 20–1).

It is worth noting, however, that Engels does not believe that ‘the discovery of the materialist view of history should be ascribed to the Prussian Romantics of the Historical School’ during the period 1837–42. As he himself argues, at that time he was only ‘superficially’ engaged with the relevant bibliography, whereas Marx was always ‘somewhat scornful of that vapid, cliché-ridden caricature of the French Romantics, Joseph de Maistre and Cardinal Bonald’ (Engels, ‘Letter to Mehring on September 28, 1892’, in Marx–Engels, Collected Works, vol. 49, pp. 549–51).

In this context, see the critique of the programme of the Historical School, especially of Savigny, by Klenner (1989).

Michael Levin argues for the importance of German romanticism in the Marxian social and political thought of the young Marx (see Levin 1974).

We must remember that, in this case, and as Klenner (1989) rightly observes, the conflict between Thibaut and Savigny is not an exclusively German affair. It has to do, in the final analysis, with the natural law philosophy of the French Revolution per se and the arguments about the universal character and the progress of humanity from its pre-capitalist past to the capitalist present and future.

Savigny (2002 [1814], pp. 27–8).

Ibid., p. 29.

Ibid., p. 30.

Ibid., p. 33.

Ibid., pp. 134–6.

Ibid., p. 148: ‘A man must have the clear, lively conception of the whole constantly present to his mind, to enable him to take a practical lesson from the individual case.’

Ibid., pp. 58–9.

See Marx, ‘Letter to his Father, November 10[–11, 1837]’, in Marx–Engels, Collected Works, vol. 1, p. 15, 19.

Jaeger ( 1967, p. 69).

Savigny (1848 [1803], Book I, Section II).

Ibid., Book I, Section V.

See Berlin (1978, p. 51) and Hunt (1975, vol. I, p. 29), as well as O’Malley (1970, p. xxiv). Jaeger (1967, p. 63) proposes a three-part distinction of periods in the dynamics of the relationship between Savigny and Marx: this starts from the theory of law and goes up to the study of pre-capitalist social formations.

Levine (1987) moves in the same direction. Moreover, according to Levine, the fact that Marx was influenced by the Historical School of Law on the issue of property should not lead to the same conclusion as regards the question of the state. Levine correctly considers that the Marxian theory of the state is exactly opposite to the romanticism of the Historical School inasmuch as Marx is clearly influenced by Hegel’s philosophy of state and law, especially during the first phase of its development (1842–43). It is Marx’s own emancipation from the idealism of Hegel (1843–44) that will allow him later (1845–46) to re-evaluate the positions of the Historical School about law and property. Anyway, Levine argues, Marx had been and remained in opposition to the reactionary/nationalist romanticism of the Historical School of law and the state.

Klenner (1989, p. 77).

See, among others, Cornu (1958, vol. 1, p. 89), Mehring (1983, p. 31) and Hunt (1975, vol. I, pp. 28–9).

For the life and work of Eduard Gans, with an emphasis on his position for the philosophy of law, see Hoffheimer (1995, pp. 1–47).

Toews (1993, p. 388).

See Gans’s prologue in the 1833 edition of the Philosophy of Law by Hegel (p. 88), which is included as an annex in Hoffheimer (1995, pp. 87–92).

Hoffheimer (1995, p. 88).

Ibid., p. 89.

For Hegel’s position on the issue of poverty, which is approached through the ‘war of all against all’ that characterises civil society, see §§ 241–9 of his Philosophy of Right. For Gans’s position on the same issue, see Breckman (2001, pp. 550ff.) and Waszek (2006).

Breckman (2001, p. 552) and Waszek (2006, pp. 38–41).

Engels, ‘Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of the Classical German Philosophy’ in Marx–Engels, Collected Works, vol. 26, p. 358.

Kubat (1961). For a systematic review of the relationship between Marx and Cieszkowski, see Liebich (1979, pp. 156–65).

The connection between the young Marx and Cieszkowski’s historiosophy is ‘ignored’ by Georg Lukács in his philosophical essay ‘Moses Hess and Problems of Idealist Dialectics’ in Lukács (1967, pp. 237–89). More recently, specialists on the Young Hegelians’ life and work have been quite cautious about Cieszkowski’s influence on the young Marx’s thinking (Liebich 1979, pp. 54–9; Stepelevich 1974).

Marx, ‘Letter to Engels, 13 January 1882’, in Marx–Engels, Collected Works, vol. 46, p. 355, 357.

Megill (2002, p. 23).

According to Rosen (1977, p. 131), Marx’s differentiation from Bauer happened later, around the end of 1842, against the background of oppositions created between the two intellectuals from their different stances with regard to the Freien. However, Lapine (1980, p. 70) locates the divergence of the two thinkers about a year earlier, towards the end of 1841 and the start of 1842, when Bauer avoided connecting philosophy and politics, a connection that Marx had already begun to implement.

Extracts from and formulations by Bauer that clearly refer to Fichte’s philosophy of praxis can be found in the fourth chapter of The Trumpet of the Last Judgement against Hegel, the Atheist and Anti-Christ: An Ultimatum. The chapter has the characteristic title ‘Hatred of the Established Order’ (see also Stepelevich 1983, pp. 181–6). The entire text of the German original can be found at http://www.archive.org/details/dieposaunedesjn00bauegoog.

Bauer, ‘Letter to Marx, March 28, 1841’, MEGA ₂, III, 1, p. 353.

Bauer, ‘Letter to Marx, March 31, 1841’, MEGA ₂, III, 1, p. 355. It should be noted that, a few decades before Bruno Bauer’s analysis of the practical role of theory, Hegel himself (1984, p. 179), in a letter to Niethammer (28 October 1808), argued: ‘I am daily ever more convinced that theoretical work accomplishes more in the world than practical work. Once the realm of representation [Vorstellung] is revolutionized, actuality [Wirklichkeit] will not hold out.’.

Marx notes in his doctoral dissertation:

It is a psychological law that the theoretical mind, once liberated in itself, turns into practical energy, and, leaving the shadowy empire of Amenthes as will turns itself against the reality of the world existing without it. … But the practice of philosophy is itself theoretical. It is the critique that measures the individual existence by the essence, the particular reality by the Idea. (Marx, ‘The Difference Between Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature’, in Marx–Engels, Collected Works, vol. 1, p. 85)

Köppen, ‘Letter to Marx, June 3, 1841’, MEGA ₂, III, 1, p. 360.

See, among others, Moggach (1996, 2003), Rosen (1971, 1977, pp. 109–24) and Sass (1978 ).

Marx’s contribution to the second part of this work, which was published in 1842 and entitled Hegels Lehre von der Religion und Kunst von dem Standpunkte des Glaubens aus beurteilt (Hegel’s Theory of Religion and Art from the Point of View of Faith), cannot be definitely proven (see Rosen 1977, pp. 129–31).

See the letters of Bauer to Marx of 1 March 1840 and 5 April 1840 (MEGA ₂, III, 1, pp. 340–1 and 345–6 respectively).

Bauer, ‘Der christliche Staat und unsere Zeit’, pp. 7, 26–7.

Ibid., p. 34.

100

Ibid., p. 35.

101

See Moggach (2006a, especially pp. 117–19).

102

Classic works in this current include Pocock (1975) and Skinner (1978). Later published works on republicanism include those by Pettit (1997, especially pp. 17–50, 271–305; 1993) and Patten (1996).

103

For the fundamental distinction between ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ freedom, see the classic essay by Isaiah Berlin ‘Two Concepts of Liberty’ in Berlin (1969).

104

Skinner, however, takes a critical distance from the connection between republicanism and positive freedom. Skinner defends negative freedom as the valuable outcome of a vita activa in a republican polity. According to Skinner, only a republican polity can guarantee the negative freedom of its citizens (1964, especially pp. 207, 213–14, 218).

Bauer, Bruno. 1968. Der christliche Staat und unsere Zeit. In Bruno Bauer, Feldzüge der reinen Kritik [1841], 7–43. Frankfurt/ M: Suhrkamp Verlag. https://www.marxists.org/deutsch/referenz/bauer-b/1841/06/staat.ht.

Bauer, Bruno. 1983. The Trumpet of the Last Judgement Against Hegel, the Atheist and Anti-Christ: An Ultimatum [Introduction and Chapter IV- 1841]. In The Young Hegelians, ed. Lawrence S. Stepelevich, 177–186. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Berlin, Isaiah. 1969. Two Concepts of Liberty. In Isaiah Berlin Four Essays on Liberty, 118–172. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Breckman, Warren. 2001. Eduard Gans and the Crisis of Hegelianism. Journal of the History of Ideas 62 (3): 543–564.CrossRef

Cornu, Auguste. 1958. Karl Marx et Friedrich Engels. Leur Vie et Leur Oeuvre, 2 Vols. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Cornu, Auguste. 1954. Les oeuvres de la jeunesse de Karl Marx (1840–1844). La Pensée 54 (March-April): 66–74.

Fichte, J. G. 1987. The Vocation of Man, trans. With an Introduction and Notes, by Peter Preuss. Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company.

Fichte, J. G. 1988. Some Lectures Concerning the Scholar’s Vocation. In Early Philosophical Writings, trans. and ed. Daniel Breazeale, 137–184. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

Gans, Edward. 1995. “Preface” to Hegel’s Philosophy of Law (1833). In Michael Hoffheimer, Michael H., Eduard Gans and the Hegelian Philosophy of Law. Dodrecht, Boston, and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Garaudy, Roger. 1976. Karl Marx: The Evolution of his Thought, trans. Nan Apotheker. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press Publishers.

Hegel, G. W. F. 1991. Elements of the Philosophy of Right, trans. H.B. Nisbet, ed. Allen W. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hegel, G. W. F. 1984. The Letters, trans. Clark Butler and Christiane Seiler. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Heine, Heinrich. 1882. The Romantic School, trans. S.L. Fleishman. New York: Henry Holt and Company. https://archive.org/details/romanticschoolb00heingoog.

Hoffheimer. 1995. Eduard Gans and the Hegelian Philosophy of Law. Dodrecht, Boston, and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Hook, Sidney. 1962. From Hegel to Marx: Studies in the Intellectual Development of Karl Marx. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan.

Hunt, Richard N. 1975. The Political Ideas of Marx and Engels. Marxism and Totalitarian Democracy, 2 Vols. London: The Macmillan Press.

Igoln, Albert. 1977. De l’ ellipse de la théorie politique de Spinoza chez le jeune Marx. Cahiers Spinoza (1): 213–228.

Jaeger, Hasso. 1967. Savigny et Marx. Archives de Philosophie du Droit 12: 65–89.

Kelley, Donald R. 1978. The Metaphysics of Law: An Essay on the Very Young Marx. The American Historical Review 83 (2): 350–367.CrossRef

Klenner, Hermann. 1989. Savigny’s Research Program of the Historical School of Law and its Intellectual Impact in 19th Century Berlin. The American Journal of Comparative Law 37 (1): 67–80.

Kubat, Daniel. 1961. Marx and Cieszkowski. American Slavic and East European Review 20 (1): 114–117.CrossRef

Lacascade, Jean-Louis. 2002. Les métamorphoses du jeune Marx. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Lapine, Nikolaï. 1980. Le jeune Marx. Moscow: Éditions du Progrès.

Levin, Michael. 1974. Marxism and Romanticism: Marx’s Debt to German Conservatism. Political Studies XXII (4): 400–413.

Levine, Norman. 1987. The German Historical School of Law and the Origins of Historical Materialism. Journal of the History of Ideas 62 (3): 431–451.

Liebich, André. 1979. Between Ideology and Utopia. The Politics and Philosophy of August Cieszkowski. Dodrecht, Boston, and London: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

Lifshitz, Mikhail. 1973. The Philosophy of Art of Karl Marx, trans. Ralph B. Winn. London: Pluto Press.

Lukács, Georg. 1967. Schriften zur Ideologie und Politik. Neuwied und Berlin: Luchterhand Verlag.

Mayer, Hans, and Zipes, Jack. 1973. Heinrich Heine, German Ideology and German Ideologists. New German Critique 1: 2–18.

McLellan, David. 1980. Marx before Marxism. London and Basingstoke: Macmillan.

McLellan, David. 1995. Karl Marx. A Biography. London and Basingstoke: Papermac.

Megill, Allan. 2002. Karl Marx. The Burden of Reason (Why Marx Rejected Politics and the Market). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Mehring, Franz. 1983. Karl Marx. Histoire de sa vie [1918]. Paris: Éditions Sociales, Paris.

Miller, Sepp, and Sawadzki Bruno. 1956. Karl Marx in Berlin. Beiträge zur Biographie von Karl Marx. Berlin: Das Neue Berlin.

Moggach, Douglas. 1996. Bruno Bauer’s Political Critique, 1840–1841. The Owl of Minerva 27 (2): 137–154.

Moggach, Douglas. 2003. The Philosophy and Politics of Bruno Bauer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Moggach, Douglas. 2006. Republican Rigorism and Emancipation in Bruno Bauer. In The New Hegelians. Politics and Philosophy in the Hegelian School, ed. Douglas Moggach, 114–35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

O’Malley, Joseph. 1970. Introduction. In Karl Marx: Critique of Hegel’s ‘Philosophy of Right’, ix–lxvii. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Oizerman, T.I. 1981. The Making of the Marxist Philosophy. Moscow: Progress Publishers.

Patten, Alan. 1996. The Republican Critique of Liberalism. British Journal of Political Science 26 (1): 25–44.CrossRef

Pettit, Philip. 1993. Liberalism and Republicanism. Australian Journal of Political Science 28 (4): 162–189.CrossRef

Pettit, Philip. 1997. Republicanism. A theory of Freedom and Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pocock, J. G. A. 1975. The Machiavellian Moment. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Rockmore, Tom. 1980. Fichte, Marx, and the German Philosophical Tradition. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.

Rosen, Zvi. 1971. The Radicalism of a Young Hegelian: Bruno Bauer. The Review of Politics 33: 377–404.CrossRef

Rosen, Zvi. 1977. Bruno Bauer and Karl Marx: The Influence of Bruno Bauer on Marx’s Thought. The Hague: Martinus Nijhof.

Rubel, Maximilien. 1977. Marx à la rencontre de Spinoza. Cahiers Spinoza 1: 7–28.

Sass, Hans-Martin. 1978. Bruno Bauer’s Critical Theory. The Philosophical Forum, 8 (2–4): 92–120, Special Issue ‘Feuerbach, Marx and the Left Hegelians’.

Savigny, Friedrich Karl (von). 2002. Of the Vocation of our Age for Legislation and Jurisprudence [1814], trans. Abraham Hayward. New Jersey: The Lawbook Exchange, Union, New Jersey.

Savigny, Friedrich Karl (von). 1815. “Preface” for the Purpose of the Edition of Zeitschrift für geschichtliche Rechtswissenschaft. Berlin: Nicolaische Buchhandlung.

Savigny, Friedrich Karl (von). 1848. Treatise on Possession or the Jus Possessionis of the Civil Law [1803], trans. Sir Erskine Perry, 1848/Hyperion reprint edition. London: S.Sweet.

Skinner, Quentin. 1964. The Idea of Negative Liberty: Philosophical and Historical Perspectives. In Philosophy in History, ed. Richard Rorty, J.B. Schneewind and Quentin Skinner, 193–221. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Skinner, Quentin. 1978. The Foundations of Modern Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Spinoza, Benedict (de). 1951. A Theologico-Political Treatise and A Political Treatise, trans. R.H.M. Elwes. New York: Dover Publications.

Stepelevich, Lawrence S. 1974. August Cieszkowski: From Theory to Praxis. History and Theory 13 (1): 39–52.CrossRef

Stepelevich, Lawrence S. (ed.). 1983. The Young Hegelians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Toews, John. 1993. Transformations of Hegelianism, 1805–1846. In The Cambridge Companion to Hegel, ed. Frederick C. Beiser, 378–413. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Waszek, Norbert. 2006. Eduard Gans on Poverty and on the Constitutional Debate. In The New Hegelians. Politics and Philosophy in the Hegelian School, ed. Douglas Moggach, 24–49. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Titel: The Philosophical ‘Moment’ of Marx’s Theory of Democracy: From the Metaphysics of Law to the Critique of Politics
verfasst von: Alexandros Chrysis
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: ‘True Democracy’ as a Prelude to Communism
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-57540-7

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-57541-4

Copyright-Jahr: 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57541-4_2

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"