>>520128I completely agree with you
>are we talking about society or the spiritMy feeling is that each thing lives within its own spirit. Society is one of these things which comes into concept.
>first as tragedy, then as farceYes, completely. Hegel also saw in his analogy of the fall of man the way in which all societies are created out of a fundamental failure to maintain itself; or what we might deem as contradiction (and what marx transposes as class society).
In his own time he suggested that war was good because it brought an integral identity to the nation, as against the particularity of private life. This is the way in which the universal must always be maintained (in its internal contradiction to have self-identity in wholeness - which is also the function of ideology).
So history (and society) are equally defined by this failure to realise itself, the same way everything dies, but like in the flower analogy - in a qualitative overcoming is still the Spirit of what the Thing is.
>totality of societyAgain, are you giving license to the trivium of interpersonal events (like this conversation) as something for-itself? No. We are mediated by the thing in-itself, which is for-itself in the very medium of our discourse. There is *something* greater than the sum of our parts in this conversation, which is the fullness of our interaction by a qualitative excess, or self-relating negativity (that stands as the universal, in concept).
Think of how a triangle is simply the abstract relation of 3 points. The truth of this relation burgeons from the content into form.
My meaning in the body example is to see how the shape of (class) society is retained, even by sublation of the mode of production. This is why marx wants to escape history itself, something i see as fruitless. The contradiction simply must continue indefinitely.
Marx's brilliant dialectical point is that it is only by the capital relation (and surplus-value) that Value as a universal substance is realised in the sale of commodities. His point is perfect because it shows the failure of Value to realise itself withiut its contingent excess (in the capitalist class).
The industrial capitalist is revolutionary to marx for the same reason, that it is he who creat
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.