Hegel and the Freedom of Moderns

by Domenico Losurdo

Translated into English for the first time, this work portrays a different side of Hegel -- not just as a philosopher preoccupied with abstract ideas but a man deeply enmeshed and active in the pressing, concrete political issues of his time.

Genres: Philosophy, History

401 pages, ebook

First published August 24, 2000

About the author

Domenico Losurdo (14 November 1941 – 28 June 2018) was an Italian Marxist philosopher and historian better known for his critique of anti-communism, colonialism, imperialism, the European tradition of liberalism and the concept of totalitarianism.

He was director of the Institute of Philosophical and Pedagogical Sciences at the University of Urbino, where he taught history of philosophy as Dean at the Faculty of Educational Sciences. Since 1988, Losurdo was president of the Hegelian International Association Hegel-Marx for Dialectical Thought. He was also a member of the Leibniz Society of Sciences in Berlin (an association in the tradition of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz's Prussian Academy of Sciences) as well as director of the Marx XXI political-cultural association.

From communist militancy to the condemnation of American imperialism and the study of the African-American and Native American question, Losurdo was also a participant in national and international politics.

Reviews

[Dan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Losurdo is brilliant as always. Taking his usual extremely rigorous approach, he lays out the long history of attacks on Hegel's thought from both liberals and feudal reactionaries. Demonstrating the vital importance of understanding the concrete historico-political conditions under which Hegel was writing to any ability to understand his thought, Losurdo dismantles many traditional attempts to paint Hegel as conservative and a blind supporter of monarchy. Examining this history also gives the opportunity for Losurdo to trace the development of classical liberal thought and show how it has always been founded in the veneration of property over human beings and has always reserved "freedom" for property owners and not the masses. By following the development of modern neoliberal thought back to Edmund Burke and the reaction against the universalism of the French Revolution, Losurdo brings us to the same conclusion as his masterpiece Liberalism: A Counter History. That liberalism is not the universal ideology of freedom it claims to be, and that only by finally ending the rule of property will we actually arrive there.

[Chet · Rating 5 out of 5]

Haven't been on goodreads in a while so I'm catching up logging books I've read recently. Overview of some very confused reactions to Hegel, particularly of interest are those who attempt to squeeze him into the rubric of liberalism. But turns out he doesn't fit so well in that space. As the title indicates one huge area of conflict and contestation is how the category "Freedom" is defined, particularly negative versus positive. As Losurdo shows, Hegel was more favorable toward positive freedom, in ways that have always made liberal ideologues uncomfortable.

[Jasmine · Rating 5 out of 5]

Twentieth century history unfolded from battles in nineteenth century philosophy, which itself was a reaction to the French Revolution. One path of nineteenth century philosophy and twentieth century history objected to the French Revolution’s upsetting of the natural order of things (are all men really equal?). In this path, we find the liberals Burke and Toqueville, neoliberals like Hayek, and the philosophers of fascism. The other path developed a philosophical expression (and eventually, political implementation) of the values that sparked the French Revolution: all men are equal, and political rights are meaningless without economic rights. This path follows Kant, Fichte, and Hegel, and from there to Marx and Engels, to Lenin and leaders of socialist movements world-wide. Given the crucial role Hegel played in this second path, it’s worth understanding his philosophy in some depth, and Losurdo’s book delivers beautifully.

Losurdo starts by asking, “is Hegel a liberal or a conservative?” (I suppose I am a little jealous that these are the arguments in which Losurdo feels he must intervene; the misunderstandings I see of Hegel revolve around a sort of “that guy loves kings…. and Spirit??”) The answer is that neither binary fits Hegel well, and in fact presupposes the rather peachy view of liberalism that liberalism views to be self-evident about itself. A better axis on which to situate Hegel would be “Patrician or plebeian?” On this axis, liberals and conservatives alike end up in the former camp, while Hegel is clearly situated in the latter (for all his approval of kings!). Hegel’s political positions are complex, and must be understood in the context of the historical events and debates of the time. Losurdo leads us through these battlefields, examining Hegel’s perspectives on revolution, the sovereign, education and the rights of the child, and the role of the state in addressing poverty.

The one gap I felt was missing from this book was an examination of Hegel’s racist statements about other civilizations. These statements also have roots in his philosophy (nothing in history is eternal, the actual is rational, and so why did Europeans become the dominant force in the 19th century?), and I think they could have fit within the argument of the book.

I feel so much more confident in the philosophical and historical issues of the nineteenth century having read this work. It's surprising (even disappointing?) how current discussions tread the same ground as discussions from two hundred years ago. Or perhaps it is instead Losurdo's skill at picking out the most relevant conflicts to our times, and presenting these clashes in ways that feel fresh but familiar. Regardless, it's a valuable book to read for understanding both the past and the present, and I strongly recommend it. However, it was a little dense, so as both a guide for myself and for other apprehensive would-be readers, I summarized the main arguments of each chapter, which you can read here.

[Maher El-khalidi]

The book serves as a good introduction into the work and philosophy of Hegel but also discusses the environment and the social culture surronding Hegels work and writings. Losurdo campares and contrasts Hegels ideas with both his supportors and his oponents which is kind of amusing. In a few instances I found that it was kind of hard to follow the authors train of thought , otherwise the book stimulated me to go further on exploring Hegel original works! So it is a good book worth the trouble reading it!

[Stephen Morrison · Rating 5 out of 5]

Incredible book

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Hegel’s political vision and philosophy of history are very far from, and are in fact opposed to, the liberal tradition…On the other hand, Hegel’s positions are also irreconcilably opposed to those of the theorists of the Restoration.” (205)

“...Hegel takes positions that are perhaps not ‘liberal,’ but that are certainly among the most progressive of his time…” (224)

“Hegel’s affirmation of the actuality of the rational and the rationality of the actual is the final philosophical legitimation of the present.” (247)

“According to Hegel, the march of revolution is precisely the march of universality.” (291)

“It is with Kant, Fichte, and Hegel, that the French Revolution finds its theoretical expression.” (305)

I am quite fortunate that, independent of my other readings on Hegel and Hegelian philosophy, I read this book after Stephen Houlgate’s An Introduction to Hegel: Freedom, Truth and History and Tony Burns’ Natural Law and Political Ideology in the Philosophy of Hegel. Whereas Houlgate sees in Hegel a modern liberal and Burns sees in Hegel a Burkean conservative, Losurdo critiques the very essence of this liberal-conservative dichotomy for its simplistic understanding of Hegel's historical context and complete inability to understand Hegel’s own views. This is not to say that Losurdo engages in a politics of absolution regarding Hegel—as he does with Stalin, Losurdo recognizes the key places where Hegel falls short and explains them.

Losurdo’s central thesis is that Hegel is not a liberal, and is fact antiliberal, in the context of his time. Utilizing the works of Locke, Montesquieu, Constant, Tocqueville, and others, Losurdo demonstrates that Hegel’s position against the “Minimum State,” his support of the French Revolution even in the Jacobin era (and here Losurdo makes the key distinction between Hegel’s support of the masses’ role in the Revolution and his critique of Jacobin Terror), his position in favor of the welfare of man against private property in extreme situations, as well as his support for the rights of children as opposed to their parents are fundamentally against the foundations of liberalism. Hegel analysis of education against parents influenced by clericalism, made in 1820s Prussia, is still relevant in 21st century America with the constant assaults upon the education system and teachers by reactionary elements of society. (210-211)

Hegel also posits, however, that Hegel cannot be considered a conservative in either the Burkean sense or in the sense of the continental Restorationists. The charge of Burkean conservatism is easily swatted away by Hegel’s rejection of the “wisdom of the ancients” and “customary rights” that characterized Burke’s constitutionalism and his followers in Germany (234-237). Hegel’s defense of modernity sets him apart from others like Schlegel, Schelling, and even Fichte. Losurdo analyzes the actual content of Hegel’s “absolutism,” and emphasizes that Hegel focuses on political institutions rather than the role of the sovereign as in traditional absolutism. Hegel’s position in favor of the Prussian sovereign against elective monarchy in the example of Poland is shown to be a consequence of Hegel’s strictly antifeudal position—“The power of the elective monarchy is a reflection of the power of feudal barons, and by crushing this power the Crown plays a progressive and modern role: this is one of the central theses of Hegel’s philosophy of history…” (48) This is confirmed by Hegel’s own analysis of the rule of Marcus Aurelius, where he recognizes the futility of the idea of the “philosopher-king” and primacy of personality over political structure. (241) This is also why Hegel opposes the various elected Diets of his day in France, Germany, and even the Reform Bill in England—the elected legislatures remain monopolized by the political power of landowners whereas Hegel sought a universal representation. Hegel’s support for compulsory and universal state education also sets him against the Restorationists, whose positions were against it similar to non-Smithian liberals of his day.

Losurdo rejects the liberal-conservative dichotomy in favor of an interpretation of Hegel as a fundamentally revolutionary philosopher, both of the French Revolution and the 1848 Revolutions. Hegel’s support for the universality of man sets him apart both from the liberal and Restorationist schools of thought, and firmly in the Jacobin camp. Hegel even surpasses the Jacobins at various times, notably in his analysis of historiography of Roman Republicanism (111-113). Whereas the Jacobins interpreted the various class struggles in Roman history as the destruction of the Republic, Hegel recognizes, similar to Parenti’s The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A People's History of Ancient Rome, the progressive nature of the Gracchi brothers and others in their attacks on the republican aristocracy. In hand with this is Losurdo’s placing of Hegel alongside Rousseau, and demonstrating where Hegel even surpasses Rousseau in several places as a representative of “plebeian radicalism.” Key in his comparison are the expression of sympathy for the poor in both the writings of Rousseau and Hegel, rare in their time, and their celebration of labor over the common Aristotelian celebration of otium (the philosophical concept of leisure).

Perhaps the best parts of the book are in the 11th and 12th chapters. Chapter 11 deals with the dialectic of actuality and rationality in Hegel’s thought as the “final philosophical legitimation of the present” against reactionaries, whilst clarifying its revolutionary content and one of the key principles adopted by Marx and Marxism itself. It “...stimulates the revolutionaries [of 1848] to make an active self-criticism and calls on them to interpret their defeat as proof not of the irremediable misery of the actual, but of the theoretical and practical insufficiency of their projects and ideals. The latter must therefore be thought over in depth, so that their excellence in the concrete process of transformation of actuality can be proved.” (262) Losurdo makes an interesting and thought provoking, though far too short (and one I would have loved to see its own book on) critique of the Frankfurt, specifically Horkheimer and Adorno (though I think it applies to Benjamin and Marcuse as well), for their inability to understand this and as an explanation of their pessimism post-1932. Chapter 12 focuses on the effects of the World Wars on the reception of German philosophy, particularly Hegel’s, as well as the creation of the concept of the “Western world” in the works of Hayek, Arendt, Popper, and others as functioning as an “ideological interdict” for racial, ideological, and strategic dominion of capital. He also critiques Lukacs’ analysis of Hegel, recognizing its superiority over Stalin and Zhdanov’s critique of Hegel, but reproaching him for his inability to understand Engels’ distinction between Hegel’s method and system.

All in all, this is the best study of Hegel that I’ve read to this point, and definitely one of the best out there regardless.

[Douglas Kim · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ever read "The German Ideology" and hankered for a 21st century sequel? Well you're in luck, as the premiere Marxist philosopher of the post-Cold War era has dived into modern interpretations of Hegel's political orientations and found them all to be bankrupt of truth, as Marx and Engels thoroughly undressed Bruno, Stirner and Proudhon in their early 1845 polemic against the other left Hegelians.

This, like TGI, is an advanced Marxist work, I would at least recommend reading TGI first before attempting to tackle this, which itself requires some familiarity with Kantian/Hegelian thought (though probably not as intensive as reading CPR or PS).

Through careful analysis of Enlightenment thinkers and political commentators of the American and French Revolutions, Losurdo dissects the argument that Hegel was actually conservative and authoritarian, an argument made by many after WW2 that he was one of the influences for Nazism, pointing to his justification of authoritarianism in certain political situations, pointing out how class struggle doesn't always align with the form of government involved and that even "old" forms of government can provide freedoms to the oppressed class that may be denied by a bourgeois "democratic" government.

Then Losurdo hops over to others who claim that Hegel was part of the liberal democratic tradition, pointing out that many liberals at the time of the French Revolution coded extremely conservative under modern standards, and that his ideas were politically more aligned with the work of who he inspired, Marx. Hegel breaks with Locke in the absolutism of property law, in stating that a person has the moral right to steal in the extreme case to preserve one's own life (stealing food to eat).

Overall, Losurdo is continuing the work or Marx, Lenin, Engels, Stalin and Mao, in helping modern Marxists understand the context of philosophy in his historical materialist place.

[The Lazy Reader · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reading hegel is like what ice melting into rivers must feel like. Anyway, this was the best resource to decode hegelian interpretations and their political and social context. Losurdo painstakingly tests hegel's critics by dropping them into the historical fact check and guess what. It's not even a fair fight. Hegel could take all these losers with his hands tied behind his back.
Will post summary notes later.

[graceofgod · Rating 5 out of 5]

O U T S T A N D I N G.

[Ziikii · Rating 4 out of 5]

una cosa per niente divertente che non rifarò mai più

[Vapula · Rating 5 out of 5]

The eternal Anglo strikes again!

[Igor Mello · Rating 5 out of 5]

Losurdo é sensacional, e pretendo ler todos os outros da linha dele na boitempo, que como sempre, fazem edições magnas.
Necessita muita força de vontade, mas se quiser uma introdução extremamente "mastigadinha" do direito em Hegel, do ponto de vista da esquerda, não temas, existem livros (bem) mais difíceis.