This could be quite interesting at times and astonishingly prescient in others; however, this is not anything like his written works of speculative philosophy. My understanding is that this book is more widely read amongst the non-initiated (haven’t enunciated their fidelity to communism) as it is far more straight forward and direct with its statements and sums up much of his philosophy quite succinctly or, I would say, too succinctly. When he gets really direct about the traversal of “spirit” through history it starts sounding ridiculous and, in my humble opinion, somewhat deviant from what he evinces in Phenomenology of Spirit. This is what is quite beautiful about speculative philosophy: the writer may not themselves even be aware of what can be elicited for the particular subject reading the work. The first time reading the Science of Logic much of the chapters on syllogism were read with the French -> Haitian revolutions in mind. The second time around, I not only recognized that I was wrong - though it still worked - I was also able to apply the history of the three internationals to the syllogistic process he “reveals” and it still worked (a history that took place 50 - 100 years after the Science of Logic). This element is quite lost in this work and it must be remembered that this was a compilation of lectures and not a written piece.
Either way, when he correctly predicts North America’s rise to world historical people after the (at the time) material conditions of free real estate came to an end, I was pumped. His description of China was interesting and, though this was 1820, it sounded a lot like how China is described today. But the biggest take away was the difference between the European countries that adopted the Protestant principle as compared to maintaining the Catholic one. If we look at the Catholic/Orthodox countries of Europe (and even their ex-colonies) well into the 20th century, and even today, we find peasant agriculture still in functional existence i.e. France (this is why farmers markets and seasonal produce is the norm there), Spain, Italy, Greece, Ukraine, Russia etcetera and then in the Protestant countries we find no remnants of peasantry and large scale, industrial agriculture in its stead and a fully industrialized/proletarianized society very early on i.e. Germany, England, Denmark, the Netherlands, etcetera. The thing to take away from this (or atleast I did) is that ideals evidently hold material conditions within them as a result of their realization or objectivity. Though religion seems separate to the economy, clearly it is not. And obviously the Protestant ethos is the capitalist ethos but it is interesting to see the developmental stagnation of those countries that remained loyal to the original Churches. The way a country is constituted in turn constitutes the subject as well as their material conditions (the mode of production). Within the imperial core, when a subject first radicalizes, in youth most often, their only solution for themselves is to radically break themselves from the state and… buy a farm and live off the land! Quite like the peasants and/or the Yeoman fantasy the country and constitution itself was founded on - our most radical fantasies can’t even think beyond the original “American Dream” that sustained the constitution even though this vision was completely impossible without slave labor.