Philosophy and Myth in Karl Marx

In response to the critical review by John C. Landon, "nemonemini", from New York City: To claim the study of Hegel as mystification betrays only a form of ignorance itself. What is needed more than ever by the Left is a new understanding (well argued for by Slavoj Zizek in his more serious works like The Parallax View) of the dialectic of reason itself whenever reasoning occurs. Yes, a return to reason itself. The problem with Marxism is the misunderstanding of Marx himself, who developed the idea of communism as the concrete, material counterpart to the new, more enlightened, dialectical understanding of reason itself demonstrated by Hegel. If one does not understand how reason itself works in and for itself through us, one will not ultimately understand Marxism, nor any other work of theory or thought whatsoever.

One of the strange secrets of Marx is that you can often learn more about him from his critics than from his defenders. Then ironically Marx's critiques, if not his theories which get in the way, often spring to life again. This Transaction reprint is like walking past an old canon on a battlefield and induces one to reopen old battles in one's mind to the point of rubbing salt in old wounds. One thinks of the Prussian official inviting Schelling back to the Universities to 'uproot the dragon seed of Hegelianism'. This approach to Marx critique wishes to uproot the whole of German philosophy starting with Kant (armed with Karen Horney's view on psychoanalysis, it seems) and that's both its weakness and curious eccentric interest. It's instructive to watch someone who has the nerve, almost naivete, to try. Hegel has a few dangerous themes in his work, and this strain entered Marx. Without agreeing, one can consider an 'expose' of a side of Hegel that is factored out of all treatments by his fans. But Kant, Hegel and Marx can't be lumped together in such a cavalier fashion. It seems at points like the book's real villain is Hegel. That approach, way before Fukuyama and his 'end of history' pastiche, would be rejected out of hand now that Hegel is back in the propaganda business, and it has to be admitted the author is perhaps off the mark on every other page. But every _other_ page is curiously apt. The way in which Hegel influenced Marx and Marxists is a philosophical tragedy in itself as teleological thinking and potential violence come into conjuncition. To pin that on Marx and use Hegel for justifying capitalism as 'cunning of reason' is a bit stinkpotish. Great confusion resulted from the attempts to graft Hegel onto a social-economic critique and a century of leftists have never figured it out. I doubt if this book does either, but if you want to survive at home plate you have to figure all the curve balls from different pitchers. If you are just looking for talking points against Marx here, you would do well to be wary of this book. The age of Freud on Kant has passed and these old fashioned potshots look absurd now. But it is a work every Marxist ought to read. And this book is and remains interesting, no matter that Hegel is now back in the mystification business and Marx said to be discredited.

It is an excellent book; it seeks to explain the roots of Marxism, defined as the actual "thought" of Karl Marx rather than "Marxism" in the hands of Lenin and others. Tucker's conclusions are, to say the least, doubtful (do however decide this for yourself), but that doesn't blemish the impressive scope and quality of his scholarship.