Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche: Or the Realm of Shadows

by Henri Lefebvre

The great French Marxist philosopher weighs up the contributions of the three major critics of modernity

Henri Lefebvre saw Marx as an ‘unavoidable, necessary, but insufficient starting point’, and always insisted on the importance of Hegel to understanding Marx. Metaphilosophy also suggested the significance he ascribed to Nietzsche, in the ‘realm of shadows’ through which philosophy seeks to think the world. Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche: or the Realm of the Shadows proposes that the modern world is, at the same time, Hegelian in terms of the state, Marxist in terms of the social and society and Nietzschean in terms of civilisation and its values. As early as 1939, Lefebvre had pioneered a French reading of Nietzsche that rejected the philosopher’s appropriation by fascists, bringing out the tragic implications of Nietzsche’s proclamation that ‘God is dead’ long before this approach was followed by such later writers as Foucault, Derrida and Deleuze. Forty years later, in the last of his philosophical writings, Lefebvre juxtaposed the contributions of the three great thinkers, in a text that’s themes remain surprisingly relevant today.

Genres: Philosophy, Theory, Politics, Nonfiction, History

240 pages, Paperback

Published February 11, 2020

About the author

Henri Lefebvre was a French sociologist, Marxist intellectual, and philosopher, best known for pioneering the critique of everyday life, for introducing the concepts of the right to the city and the production of social space, and for his work on dialectics, alienation, and criticism of Stalinism, existentialism, and structuralism.

In his prolific career, Lefebvre wrote more than sixty books and three hundred articles. He founded or took part in the founding of several intellectual and academic journals such as Philosophies, La Revue Marxiste, Arguments, Socialisme et Barbarie, Espaces et Sociétés.

Lefebvre died in 1991. In his obituary, Radical Philosophy magazine honored his long and complex career and influence:
the most prolific of French Marxist intellectuals, died during the night of 28–29 June 1991, less than a fortnight after his ninetieth birthday. During his long career, his work has gone in and out of fashion several times, and has influenced the development not only of philosophy but also of sociology, geography, political science and literary criticism.

Reviews

[Goatboy · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fascinating work (the first I've read by Lefebvre) that at times read crystal clear and enlightening and at others well beyond my ability to definitively grasp what was being argued or described. Lefebvre works through how these three thinkers extrapolated, predicted and described a modern world that they were just on the cusp of. A world we all now find ourselves within. For Hegel - The State. For Marx - Society. For Nietzsche - Civilization. I come away from this work knowing and understanding more about each thinker, but realizing also that there is so much left to learn.

[pablo! · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ninguna review le haría justicia. Es un libro denso y refrescante. Básicamente es un helado de pistacho.

Lectura obligatoria.

[Katie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Glimmering: “Every systematic mind draws a masochistic pleasure from the prison in which it confines itself, by carefully drawing the bolts. Nietzsche, for his part, opens them. ‘With a hammer,’ indeed, but also with his blood.” Gorgeous!

[Víctor · Rating 5 out of 5]

¿El mundo moderno es hegeliano, marxista o nietzscheano? Esa es la pregunta que el filósofo francés, Henri Lefebvre, pretende atacar (filosóficamente) en este libro.

Supe de Lefebvre al leer a David Harvey, en particular su libro Ciudades Rebeldes, ya que fue Lefebvre su inspiración con
su teoría de la producción social del espacio. Y por eso, me quedé con la idea de que Lefebvre era un geógrafo marxista, al igual que Harvey. Un día, buscando un regalo de cumpleaños para A., en la librería del barrio, me encontré con este volumen. Los tres nombres del título me atraparon: son filósofos cuyo pensamiento me han intrigado mucho recientemente, por lo que salí de allí con el libro.

Pero estaba equivocado, Henri Lefebvre no sólo fue geógrafo, fue filósofo y sociólogo. Un intelectual francés fallecido en 1991, que peleó durante la segunda guerra mundial al lado de la resistencia francesa, y militó en el Partido Comunista Francés, del cual fue luego expulsado al criticar al Estalinismo y al Estructuralismo, enfoque filosófico del "gurú" intelectual del partido, Louis Althusser.

Este libro fue publicado en 1975 y está dividido en cuatro secciones: la triadas, el dosier Hegel, el dosier Marx, el dosier Nietzsche y la conclusión.

El primer capítulo, sobre las triadas, habla de ellas dentro de la lógica dialéctica, pero sin abordarlas de manera abstracta, sino dentro del contexto de estos tres autores. Plantea a Hegel como la tesis, quien postula un sistema filosófico cerrado, que abarca la totalidad del mundo y de lo humano; luego a Marx como la antítesis, que se opone a ese sistema hegeliano, pero
que surge de él (Marx es un discípulo de Hegel, a la vez que lucha contra él). Y Nietzsche es la síntesis, la solución a esta confrontación, pero es una solución que rompe con toda la tradición filosófica occidental.

Me gustó mucho, en este capítulo, su exploración a San Agustín, como un filósofo desechado por la doctrina católica, para quien su claro campeón intelectual es Santo Tomás de Aquino y su platonismo cristianizado. En cambio, San Agustín, plantea una filosofía cristiana más cercana a la experiencia humana que de los saberes institucionalizados. Plantea al hombre como un ser divino caído al mundo (ser-ahí), cuyo deseo, que era infinito, al igual que su placer, muda en deseo finito, y está condenando a su constante búsqueda. Dicho deseo en el mundo se desdobla en tres libidos: libido sciendi, o la necesidad de saber; libido sentiendi, la necesidad del goce; y libido dominandi, la necesidad de mandar, o en términos de Nietzsche, la voluntad de poder. Y estos tres libidos, en cierta manera, representan el pensamiento de estos tres autores: el primero es Hegel, y su enaltecimiento al saber; el segundo es Marx y su defensa al vivir, y el último, Nietzsche.

De Hegel recoge su configuración del Estado como la organización social más depurada para lograr la superación humana. Es a través del Estado donde la humanidad llegará a su expresión más alta. El Estado está dirigido por una clase pensante (convertida luego en clase política), quien conoce de cabo a rabo la totalidad del mismo. Por tanto, el poder para Hegel, radica en el saber y el saber es todo lo existente (como se puede recordar con su tautología "todo lo real es racional y todo lo racional es real"). De allí, Lefebvre afirma que el mundo moderno es definitivamente hegeliano, aunque no lleva a la humanidad en la dirección señalada por Hegel, a su superación, sino a la conservación de los beneficios de un puñado de personas, en detrimento del resto de la humanidad y de los sistemas ecológicos.

Tal y como Hegel argumentaba, hoy en día los partidos políticos y los medios de comunicación promueven la calidad de estadista en ciertos personajes, es decir, señalan a individuos que dicen conocer el funcionamiento del Estado en su totalidad y son capaces de dirigirlo de manera que todos los integrantes de dicho Estado vean sus condiciones materiales y espirituales mejoradas.

Sin embargo, los Estados modernos son extraordinariamente grandes y complejos, ningún individuo o grupo, puede suponer siquiera el conocimiento de todos los conflictos que existen o que pueden florecer dentro del Estado. Entonces, lo que los partidos políticos y los medios de comunicación hacen es coacción e ideología, para que quienes se hagan del poder del Estado lo utilicen para sus intereses privados.

De Marx, Lefebvre dice que no existe un marxismo, sino que existen interpretaciones de Marx; algunas intentan formar sistemas, como los socialismos de Estado. Pero Marx no dejó un sistema, sino un pensamiento crítico que propone, un lenguaje nuevo, un énfasis en lo vivido sobre los saberes. Marx se aleja de la abstracciones y desvela a la filosofía los mecanismos concretos de la explotación, la opresión y la humillación. En una palabra, la alienación.

Marx encuentra en el mismo oprimido, o más exactamente, en el proletariado, que es producto exclusivo del sistema capitalista, al sujeto histórico capaz de desarrollar consciencia de si mismo y de su misión, ya no histórica, sino universal, que consiste es invertir las relaciones sociales de dominación a las de desarrollo en igualdad.

Quiero hacer aquí un paréntesis para insistir en la definición de proletariado, ya que la ideología capitalista se ha esforzado en erosionar su significado. Hoy ya nadie se identifica como proletario, aunque la gran mayoría lo sigamos siendo. Proletario, en palabras actuales, es quien se ve obligado a ir al mercado de trabajo para ofrecer su fuerza laboral a cambio de medios de subsistencia. Es decir, tanto empleados como quienes trabajan "por cuenta propia" (trabajadores autónomos y pseudo-empresarios individuales).

Este proyecto del proletariado tiene su salto cualitativo al erradicar el concepto de Estado para la organización social. Este salto cualitativo se etiqueta como Revolución.

En el plano político, ¿en qué consiste la revolución? En tres actos sucesivos y encadenados: acabar con el Estado «existente» en tal coyuntura nacional; construir otro edificio político, el de la dictadura (o, mejor, de la hegemonía) proletaria; poner así fin al Estado y a la política por decadencia (y no por disgregación, corrupción, etc.). En resumen, mediante dos verbos activos: reabsorber la política y absorber lo económico en lo social al establecer prioridad de este. Tal es el objetivo estratégico.

—Henri Lefebvre. Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche (o el reino de las sombras). p. 122

Me gustó mucho la parte donde Lefebvre rescata al Marx ecologista, mucho antes que la ecología fuera una disciplina en sí misma, ya que Marx pone de manifiesto la contradicción en el desarrollo productivista, que se realiza fuera del entorno ecológico, que ve a los sistemas vivientes como un mero almacén, y que el ser humano está fuera de esa naturaleza-almacén, cuando en realidad es parte de esos sistemas vivos interrelacionados.

Lefebvre cierra el dosier preguntando, como con Hegel, si el mundo actual es marxista y concluye que no lo es. El proletariado no se ha levantado como sujeto hacedor de cambios y posiblemente no lo haga, en gran medida porque el pensamiento hegemónico burgués (quienes controlan el otro lado del mercado de trabajo) ha asimilado, parcialmente, a Marx para fosilizarlo, escondiendo su elemento revolucionario, y declararlo muerto cuantas veces sea necesario.

Finalmente el dosier de Nietzsche. Nietzsche se revelará contra todo el pensamiento occidental, y lo hará sitiando, por todos los flancos, a su mayor representante: Hegel.

Tanto para Hegel, como para Marx, el conocimiento es histórico, de cambios cuantitativos a saltos cualitativos. Nietzsche rechaza la concepción histórica de la filosofía y habla de genealogías, de saltos entre ramas de pensamiento, tal vez ya olvidadas, para luego ser rescatadas por pensadores originales.

Para Nietzsche, la filosofía son sólo mitos sin belleza. Para él debería anteponerse, ante todo, lo vivido; lo sabido, siempre deberá estar al último. El problema es que lo vivido es caótico, desestructurado, aterrador. La experiencia filosófica de Nietzsche es enfrentarse a ese conocimiento de lo vivido.

En Hegel el motor de la historia es el conocimiento, la idea. Nietzsche rechaza esa noción y pone de manifiesto que el único motor que ha tenido la historia hasta ahora es la voluntad de poder, el poder por el poder mismo, la búsqueda de la dominación sobre el otro. Y esta voluntad de poder se refleja en casi todas las dimensiones humanas, particularmente en el lenguaje:

[…] Las palabras y el lenguaje no designan más que relaciones (entre las cosas y los seres humanos); expresa metafóricamente esas relaciones. […]

[…] El lenguaje nada tiene en común con la expresión de una verdad ideal o de una realidad dada. No es el instrumento del conocimiento, sino de un esquema al servicio de un orden, de un poder.[…]

—Henri Lefebvre. Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche (o el reino de las sombras). p. 168, 169

Aunque Nietzsche reconoce que es el Estado la institución culmen de la voluntad de poder, dice que la superación del hombre no se debe limitar a su destrucción, sino que debe cambiar su forma de vivir, es decir, establecer una nueva ética, una ética a caballo entre lo apolíneo y lo dionisíaco (lo sabido y lo vivido), pero más que nada, la superación radica en la renovación del lenguaje, en una palabra, la poesía; sólo lo poético, el acto poético, tiene la capacidad de romper con la voluntad de poder, de valorar lo vivido en detrimento de lo concebido, de trocar el resentimiento de la humillación, en felicidad.

Para Nietzsche la única forma de superar a la naturaleza es superando la voluntad de poder. Regresando al valor de uso, al valor de la experiencia vivencial, sobre la imposición de estructuras. Por tanto no debería haber retorno a la naturaleza, que tiende a la dominación.

En definitiva, para Nietzsche, se debe primar lo diferente, lo creador, sobre lo repetitivo, que es la historia, que es la identidad propia. Hay que buscar la disolución de la identidad, para tomar la responsabilidad de construirnos a nosotros mismos constantemente; sólo así seremos creadores, arriesgándonos al desafiar lo cotidiano, que es expresión del poder.

¿El mundo de hoy es nietzschiano? Sólo en parte, responde Lefebvre. Una pequeña élite, una aristocracia que se asume intelectual, que presume serlo, volviendo lo vivido en algo frívolo, mercantil, en una pose. Subsumen la ética de Nietszche dentro de la lógica capitalista.

Por tanto, mientras que los sistemas estatales hegelianos se han cumplido, y estos proveen certidumbre y cierta seguridad, también han dejado miseria, destrucción ecológica y vidas sin sentido. Su oposición han sido el proyecto revolucionario de Marx y la perspectiva subversiva de Nietzsche.

Marx y Nietzsche comparten mucho en común, pero tienen también grandes diferencias: Marx anuncia lo posible, y allí radica su dificultad; mientras que Nietzsche ha denunciado la monstruosidad de las verdades metafísicas e históricas, pero su ética esconde peligros que llevarían a la catástrofe.

No tenemos que elegir uno, hay que meditar los tres y entender las relaciones dialécticas entre ellos para intentar vivir en este mundo al que hemos sido arrojados.

https://www.ceyusa.com/blog/hegel-mar...

[Andrew Noselli · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book by the French philosopher Henri Lefebvre holds the somewhat tenuous positions that these three thinkers constitute the most significant presences in terms of their influence in shaping contemporary society. As Lefebvre sees it, they constitute a holy triad, with Hegel standing as the Father-image, who suggested that structure was the determining factor on the origin of the the state, and who accelerated the development of state-capitalism; Marx stands for the the Son, whose faith in the base of society precipitated the development of state-socialism; and finally, Nietzsche, who stands for a Holy Spirit whose joy supervened over the cultural relationship of Hegel's base to Marx's superstructure and made it human and therefore tragic.

Nietzsche's legacy, Lefebvre suggests, leaves us in a quandary, namely, can a state-supported individualism be accepted by society at large? I don't know how to answer that question except to suggest that, in my opinion, in terms of the three centuries Lefebvre wishes to take an overview of, Foucault would be a better substitute for Nietzsche, as he oversaw the formation and dissolution of power-relations that developed in the 20th century, and this power was understood as the motivating lever of the social world, not only between competing economies and social systems but between the sexes, too.

Perhaps this triad could be extended to a quartet, as Andrei Noselli would, in my estimation, be an even better addition to this construction, for in his writing he revealed the oppositional structure of the self as evidence in his study of the history of autobiography, beginning with sadomasochistic Rousseau and then a profane study of the narcissistic Henry Miller and the obsessive Howard Stern and, moreover, in his Master's thesis, Noselli detailed how the oppositional structure of the self, society, and reality (another triad) is overcome through the passing from modernist historical time to postmodern ideological space - this to be revealed and promulgated further in 2025, nearly three hundred years after Hegel wrote his Philosophy of Right. Perhaps somewhere in a parallel universe somewhere in the future, maybe in 2050, at a time when I am nearly Joe Biden's current age, I will be entering politics just in time to staunch the tide of humanoid robots and artificially intelligent machines that will be unveiled by Jeff Bezos to enact the replacement of humankind with a state-centered neo-individualist repressive regime? After all, I studied psychohistory and psychodrama at Rockland Community College with David Beisel and Joseph Pirone and I became familiar with 1) Alfred Adler on the use of the concept of gemeinschaftsgefuhl that is necessary for building inclusive, community-based feelings and 2) the work of Abraham Maslow on the pyramid representing the hierarchy of human needs and proper human engagement techniques and, in addition, 3) Erich Fromm on Hitler's childhood psychogenesis and so I received a deeper understanding of how history is affected by a train of evolutionary psychoses, and 4) a major influence on my intellectual development was my exposure to Lloyd DeMause's history of childhood, so I can see how in an alternate future a significantly healthier Andrew Noselli could set the stage for the inauguration of an America whose political philosophy is based on the helping-mode style of child-rearing. Is it possible that, in a real sense, I will enter the political world twenty-five years from now in order to stem the tide of humanoid robots that they will call the Supermen? All I know is that I am writing as a would-be philosopher, but I do have some history in this department, at least academically. It seems to me that an epistemological break that occurred in the 1960s as the after-effect of two World Wars calls for the emergence of an individual who takes the long-view of the postmodern political position, which first developed when the limits of production went from the hundreds of thousands to multi-millions of units per year. It seems to me that the anti-competitive capitalist practices of the 21st century make such a person's emergence in our fair country of primary importance. Three stars. (I purchased two more of Lefebvre's books today!)

[Jon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Written in the early to mid seventies, when Lefebvre was in his early to mid seventies, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, or, the Realm of Shadows is ostensibly an exploration of the contradictions of Lefebvre's three main influences, but might end up leaving a reader with the impression that it is documenting the progression of Lefebvre's own thinking, in the order of the title.

These three thinkers might be seen as the pillars of Lefebvre's philosophy of modernism, but the turns they take in his text are different. First, Hegel sinks under the weight of his Ideal State; then Marx never finishes his brilliant project, and has not lead to success; and then Nietzsche, on the other hand, simply holds up his finger and points, perhaps to no end or nowhere, or towards poetry and something unimaginably different.

I think Lefebvre is best known for work about The Production of Space , which I haven't read yet, and also theorizing and bringing into common usage the notion of everyday life, as outlined in the dazzling, sprawling, extremely uneven, and flawed Critique of Everyday Life , which I have read. But this work gives what I think you could call Lefebvre's personal Historicism, so to speak, and all kidding aside is as brilliant an autobiographical polemic as Hegel's Lectures on the History of Philosophy 1: Greek Philosophy to Plato . I really won't think about or understand Hegel, Marx, or Nietzsche the same ever again. Truth.

[Perry · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think I have to swear off reading French critical theorists for a while. There seems to be a pattern here of flowery and imprecise rhetoric. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with style, but not all poetry is profound. Then again, I'm no expert in philosophy, so take my thoughts with a grain of salt.

Perhaps there really is something to the platitudes and literary turns of phrase in this book, something that I can't quite grasp yet or never will. However, there were parts I definitely understood but just did not take very seriously (such as when Lefebvre engages in spurious numerology to explain the rule of threes -- perhaps it is a reflection of our environment the land, air, and sea? Personally, I'm more inclined to attribute it to Alvin, Simon, and Theodore).

That said, behind all the pretentiousness (which again, may just be an inherent feature in academic writing of this milieu) lies a solid, albeit unorthodox, introduction and overview to the ideas of Hegel, Marx, and Nietzsche and how they relate to each other. The central thesis is that the state is in a sense Hegelian; society (social relations, relations of production) is explained by Marx; and civilization (hierarchies of values, a certain bottom-up construction of language and society from the level of the individual) is Nietzschean. I was not too familiar with these thinkers, but from what I can tell Lefebvre's thesis is more or less correct.

The best part of this book is the conclusion, which is worth reading regardless of what precedes it (though I wonder if I would have been able to understand the conclusion without first reading the rest). Lefebvre neatly lays out his case; everything seems to come together very nicely at the very end. The reason Hegel's thinking is so powerful is because it is essentially what any leftist project is up against.

Though his assertion of the rationality of the total system naïvely relied on the assumption that the ruling class would not detach themselves from the ensemble (hence placing themselves "above" it), it is true that the nation-state has only grown more powerful since Hegel's time. And indeed, as Hegel predicts, the state co-opts knowledge (theoretical knowledge, political theory, philosophy, science etc) and legitimizes that knowledge with power (violent constraint). This deadly combination, an oppressive state served and in turn justified by an intelligenstia and bureaucracy, has proved its longevity and shrewdness, although some might deny that capitalism and the modern state are part of the same system at all.

This is where Marx comes in. As Lefebvre notes, nearly none of Marx's long-term predictions (which are fairly important to his theory) have come true. No proletarian revolt is on the horizon even half a century after the publication of this book. The analogy of the mode of production with biology has thus far proven ill-founded -- the contradictions have not heightened to the extent that capitalism has perished. The world cannot possibly be called Marxist in this sense. However, the primacy of capital, the fetishism of commodity, the reification of exchange-value (as opposed to use-value), the theory of alienation, etc -- all these classic Marxist concepts upon which his predictions were built -- are as valid, if not more valid, today. Marx was the first to theorize class relations and the mode of production in this way, and his framework more or less survives even if his predictions do not. It is well documented that Marx had a complicated relationship with his predecessor Hegel. Where the latter saw the "end of history" (sound familiar?), Marx rather foresaw an overcoming (often mistranslated as abolishment), in which the working class as opposed to the rational nation-state would assert itself as the "subject" of history. What came after, however, and what would happen to the state, is not so clear. As Lefebvre mentions, the debates over Stalinism and Leninism continue to this day in every Marxist circle.

Finally, Nietzsche picks up where Marx left off. Whereas Marx speaks of an "overcoming", Nietzsche speaks of a metamorphosis. Marxist revolution supersedes; Nietzsche's superhuman instead destroys what came before. Nietzsche did not have much interesting to say about the state, modes of production, the bourgeoisie. Instead, he theorized everyday life; the body; poetry and music. As Lefebvre says in the conclusion, where Marx saw objective possibilities, Nietzsche saw subjective ones. Whereas Marx called for richer social relations, Nietzsche called for richer relationships between the body and consciousness and between the body and language. Nietzsche was also an elitist, which is one of the major shortcomings of his philosophy; it is possible that those who take on the Nietzschean project will simply retreat to an aesthetic life and become ineffectual members of a powerless intelligentsia. Indeed, this is more or less what happened. Nevertheless, Nietzsche did describe the world accurately when he described language as an army of metaphors -- and an army in the sense of Hegel, a violent constraining force which reinforces the knowledge (and hence values) of the state. And Nietzsche was correct that a civilization is made up of these very values, meanings, which live or die.

Though I probably won't be returning to this book, I am probably more comfortable with the ideas of the three thinkers, and in relation to each other -- though, as I mentioned, some of the readings here are unorthodox. The strongest section of the file on Nietzsche, and perhaps there is something more interesting in Lefebvre's "Philosophy of Everyday Life".

[Rhys · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche - 'three stars, but one constellation'. Lefebvre explores the 'meaning' of each of these thinkers in the twentieth century, from a notion of the State as totality, to an open future through the dictatorship of the proletariat, to the anti-dogmatic 'yes' of Nietzschean civilization. The text reads like notes, but they are rich in exploration.

[Peter Bradley · Rating 2 out of 5]

Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche: or the Realm of Shadows by Henri Lefebvre

A close-up of a book cover

AI-generated content may be incorrect.


This text promised to fit perfectly into my Marx back to the Romantics through Hegel reading arc, with the added dimension of Nietzsche. I was hoping this book would offer insights into Marx’s use of Hegelian philosophy in his own approach. Unfortunately, Lefebvre does not provide a systematic presentation. Rather, this book is structured as his own incidental reflections on different topics that Lefebvre has about the three thinkers, as they occur to him. A further misfortune is that Lefebvre makes sweeping pronouncements in florid prose that have no textual foundation or intellectual analysis.

Henri Lefebvre (1901-1991) was a French Marxist philosopher and sociologist. He started reading Schopenhauer in his early 20s, and then moved on to Nietzsche and Hegel. He became a Communist in 1928. In the 1950s, he began to criticize Stalin, particularly because of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution. He was expelled from the Communist Party in 1958, although he retained his Marxist philosophy. He was appointed to teaching positions at the University of Strasbourg and the University of Paris-Nanterre to teach Sociology.

Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche (“HMN”) was written in 1975. Lefebvre’s status as a heterodox Marxist may explain why he has created a triumvirate of Hegel, Marx, and Nietzsche, rather than giving Marx sole credit. Likewise, it may explain some of Lefebvre’s observations about Marx not being a philosopher or historian.

Lefebvre begins his book with three epigrams that explain the subtitle to his book and may explain HMN’s unifying theme:

The system of logic is the kingdom of shadows … to dwell and work in this shadowy realm is the absolute cultivation and discipline of consciousness. – Hegel

The spirit of theory, once it has won its inner freedom, tends to become practical energy: it leaves the realm of shadows and acts as will on outward material reality. – Marx

I will complete my statue: for a shadow came unto me – the stillest and lightest of all things once came unto me! The beauty of the Superhuman came unto me as a shadow. – Zarathustra

Lefebvre, Henri. Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche: Or the Realm of Shadows . Verso Books. Kindle Edition.

I. Triads
Lefebvre begins by talking about “triads.” The first chapter is filled with “triads.” Hegel’s Idea has “three moments” and “Hegel’s tripod monster.” Lefebvre refers to “sacred numbers,” such as three, seven, ten, twelve, and thirteen. Augustine had “three liberdines”: libido sciendi (curiosity), libido sentiendi (concupiscence of the flesh), and libido dominandi (ambition). The Greeks thought in triads: chance, will, and determinism. Joachim di Fiore divided time into three periods: law, faith, and joy. This is all very nice, but how is it philosophy?

He offers his opinion that the world is Hegelian, Marxist, and Nietzschean. He invests some importance in “threes,” but the fact is that he is a Marxist with an interest in Nietzsche. Hegel comes along with Marx, giving him three philosophers to discuss.[1] Lefebvre writes:

If it is true that Hegelian thought is focused in one word and one concept, the state; that Marxist thought strongly emphasizes the social and society; and that Nietzsche meditated on civilization and values, then through the paradox we glimpse a meaning that remains to be discovered: a triple determination of the modern world, implying conflicts that are multiple and perhaps without end, within so-called human ‘reality’. This is a hypothesis whose scope permits us to say that it has a strategic import.

Lefebvre, Henri. Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche: Or the Realm of Shadows (pp. 3-4). Verso Books. Kindle Edition.

From this excerpt, the reader can see that Lefebvre will be reducing the three philosophies to state, society, and civilization, respectively. However, note that the last two sentences are a word salad of philosophical babble. We are glimpsing something through a paradox? What paradox? How does anyone glimpse anything through a paradox? There are “multiple conflicts,” perhaps without end? Are these conflicts the promised paradoxes? Why is “reality” in “scare quotes”? What does “strategic import” mean in this context? HMN never lets up on this level of fog.

In the section on “Triads,” Lefebvre offers some historical red meat concerning Stalin and Hegelianism. I take what Lefebvre says with a grain of salt other than its use as a primary source on Marxist attitudes.[2]Thus, Lefebvre places Hegel on the Right:

Hegel and Hegelianism may be charged with reaction pure and simple. A rightist politics that saw itself not just as Realpolitik but as theoretically true, would be justified in Hegel by analysis of the ‘real’, of the nation and the pays réel, the necessary institutions. This would also legitimate both state and state apparatuses, along with political apparatuses in general and the predominance of the statesman over all other ‘moments’ of knowledge, culture, etc.

Lefebvre, Henri. Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche: Or the Realm of Shadows (pp. 36-37). Verso Books. Kindle Edition.

Stalinists, therefore, attempted to distance themselves from Hegelianism while in fact becoming Hegelian in essence:

The Stalinists cleverly muddied their tracks, for example by describing Hegel as a ‘philosopher of feudal reaction’, whereas they themselves were Hegelians and even super-Hegelians. If the class struggle after a proletarian revolution leads to a strengthening and increased centralization of the state, this may be a ‘historical necessity’, but it has nothing in common with the thinking of Marx.

Lefebvre, Henri. Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche: Or the Realm of Shadows (p. 37). Verso Books. Kindle Edition.

AS for Marxism, state socialism followed a line other than Marx, namely that of Lasalle:

If state socialism has triumphed in the workers’ movement, and in the world, this means that the workers’ movement has abandoned both Marxism and Leninism; that it has succumbed to Lassalleanism; that Marxism has become an ideology, a philosophy serving the state, a public service in the Hegelian sense. Marx holds no responsibility for this situation, other than having left in obscurity a conflict of decisive importance.

Lefebvre, Henri. Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche: Or the Realm of Shadows (p. 38). Verso Books. Kindle Edition.

Lefebvre explains the “kingdom of shadows” subtitle as being appropriated from Hegel, who foresaw the “omnipresence and omnipotence of the state.” The rationality of the state would lead to “deadly boredom” after the “satisfaction of the Spirit had had completed its task.” On the other hand, Marxism has been a disappointment, according to Lefebvre. Nowhere in 1975, or thereafter, is the Revolution he predicted likely to occur. Nietzsche left behind madness by shattering meaning and truth.

Even Nietzsche is problematic. Lefebvre writes:

The same holds, finally, for Nietzsche and Hitlerian fascism. A forced falsification twisted Nietzsche’s texts, pulling them towards fascist ideology. True, ambiguous fragments are not lacking. In his analysis of the will to power, Nietzsche expresses admiration for questionable heroes: adventurers, condottieri, conquistadores. Marx might equally be classified as an anti-Semite on the basis of his text on the Jewish question! Developing a radical critique, a fundamental refutation, a refusal and rejection of the libido dominandi, Nietzsche envisaged all its aspects, all its masks, both political and otherwise: imperial and imperialist action, Machiavellianism, warlike ambition and activity, as well as goodness, charitable action, ‘good works’, even renunciation and humility.

Lefebvre, Henri. Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche: Or the Realm of Shadows (pp. 38-39). Verso Books. Kindle Edition.

Nietzsche would have been deemed anti-Semitic by today’s standards. His anti-Jewish statements were not fabricated. His sister made no alterations to Nietzsche’s texts that did not involve her.

I think Lefebvre can be summarized as follows: Utopia has not arrived. Other than Hegel’s philosophy, the philosophies that promised transformation have failed. Grayness is everywhere.

II. The Hegel File
Lefebvre breaks his discussion of the three philosophers into separate “files.” In each “file,” he numbers his sections. Apart from numbering, there is no obvious organization of the separate numbered chapters. It appears that Hegel would ask a question or have an idea, then proceed in a stream of consciousness until he had said what he wanted to say. It is not clear whether each section has a structure or whether he has answered the question or reached a conclusion. He just stops and moves to a new chapter.

According to Lefebvre, the state has triumphed, but it is not Hegel’s state, since the state is naturally divided into triads: legislative, executive, and judicial.[3] In 1975, society was in the grips of the antimilitaristic post-Vietnam syndrome, which may explain this passage:

The army, stuffed with explosives, bedecked with killing machines and explosive in itself, has more need to kill than a male full of sperm has to ejaculate. Will submission to uniform and dictatorship last a long time? No state is without its army, which prefers civil war to foreign – internal contradictions apart. When the violence presided over by the state is unleashed, waged rationally with military procedures, it goes as far as genocide. And here we are still further from Hegelian rationality.

Lefebvre, Henri. Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche: Or the Realm of Shadows (pp. 78-79). Verso Books. Kindle Edition.

Since the state is ultimately the location of institutionalized violence, not reason, Hegel’s vision has been defeated.

Lefebvre argues that state capitalism and state socialism share the common aim of growth. State Capitalism is caught between national and multinational firms. State Socialism is closer to Hegel’s “great machine” but does not function automatically or satisfactorily. For capitalism, economics is in the driver’s seat; for socialism, politics is in the driver’s seat. Both sides are crushing social relationships, which was Marx’s concern.

Lefebvre dissents from Hegel in an anti-statist direction:

For Hegel, the state perfects the creative capacity of knowledge; infinite in the finite, it brings time to an end by establishing itself in space. On the contrary: the state kills whatever tries to go further, and space overflows its competence, finite by essence, which thus meets its end and the principle of its self-destruction. However, we should guard against attributing it an absolute originality. Before the philosophico-political state, was there not the theologico-political state, which has left its traces? In Rome, the pontifical state oversaw a deadly ennui for centuries, a legitimized barbarism that was already countered by the art of the baroque, the strange, the informal – surrealism, non-realism or hyper-realism before the name.

Lefebvre, Henri. Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche: Or the Realm of Shadows (p. 84). Verso Books. Kindle Edition.

The reader can see in this quote Lefebvre’s penchant for florid, purple prose and sweeping caricatures, not unlike those of Isaiah Berlin. But this prose amounts to philosophy-babble. Lefebvre makes sweeping statements, but unless the reader is already primed to agree, they are unpersuasive.

III. The Marx Files
This may be the best chapter in HMN, but it has a definite agenda. According to Lefebvre, there is “no such thing as ‘Marxism’.” Marxism was invented by “Marxists” who looked for a system in Marx’s writing, but Marx’s thoughts do not have the “form of a system.” In addition, Marx’s project remained incomplete and imperfect. These features allowed Stalin to appropriate “Marxism”:

Third, this incomplete, broken, imperfect character of Marx’s thought paradoxically explains ‘Marxism’ and its successes. Collections of texts, more or less cleverly selected and fitted together, gave the appearance of an original thought, a doctrine attributed to Marx. These successive ‘systems’ serve as alibis and masks. In the wake of Lassalle, and along with many others, Stalin called himself a Marxist and effectively bent Marx’s words and concepts to his own use; he replaced the Marxist critique of the state, reprised and emphasized by Lenin in The State and Revolution, with a super-Hegelianism, an unconditional apologia for the state, a theory of its strengthening. Hegelian logic was in full operation in Stalinist ideology and the practical construction of a system that imprisoned those who tried to escape from it.

Lefebvre, Henri. Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche: Or the Realm of Shadows (p. 92). Verso Books. Kindle Edition.

Obviously, Lefebvre is distancing Marx from the failures that were obvious in the Communist world, even in 1975.

Marx was a Hegelian in his youth, and he took up Hegelian logic and dialectic in 1857. On the other hand, Marx renewed his attack on the Hegelian theory of the state as part of his attacks on Lassalle in 1875. [4]

Lefebvre defines Marx’s real interest as not being economic freedom but social freedom:

For Marx, freedom is defined on the social level, and only on this level, to the exclusion of economic determinisms as such and political constraints as such. Who is this individual? A social being, says Marx, a node or nucleus, a (mobile) centre of social relations. Their degree of practical and concrete reality, thus of freedom, depends on the complexity and ‘wealth’ of these relationships. Here, wealth in social relations is contrasted with wealth in money as appropriate to property. Poverty in social relations may go together with wealth in things, in money and capital. Conversely, wealth (in relationships) often goes together with poverty (in things and money).

Lefebvre, Henri. Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche: Or the Realm of Shadows (p. 116). Verso Books. Kindle Edition.

With this perspective, it might be said that discussions of Marxism transforming into “cultural Marxism” miss the point that, according to Lefebvre, this is the core of Marxism. Social issues such as feminism, gay liberation, and black nationalism are social relationships. Thus, if Lefebvre is correct, it is not surprising to see Marxism “evolve” in this direction. It is worth noting that it has moved in this direction, away from economics, because of its abysmal economic performance, something Lefebvre alluded to in 1975.

Lefebvre further emphasizes the social revolution in this paragraph:

To sum up, once again, for Marx, Engels, and Lenin, the revolution they envisaged, the total revolution, was distinguished from political revolutions by the promotion or rise of the social against the political and the economic.

Lefebvre, Henri. Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche: Or the Realm of Shadows (p. 118). Verso Books. Kindle Edition.

To shore up the point that Lefebvre was distancing Marx from the looming failure of Marxism, there is this observation:

The ‘world’ that calls itself Marxist, and is generally known as communist, is neither Marxist nor communist. These labels and epithets carry with them an ideology and a mythology. ‘Ideology’ and ‘mythology’ do not mean unreal; once again, people kill one another in the name of ideas and ideologies, myths and utopias, far more than for ‘realities’. Both communism and anti-communism are part of modern ideologies. The so-called Marxist or communist ‘world’ has its Marxist ideology, in other words, Marxism has been transformed into an ideology and the project of a ‘communist’ society into rhetoric. The texts of Marx, Engels and Lenin on the state and its withering away are both numerous and undeniable. These texts may be obscured, cast into shadow, but not refuted. If we conclude, in the name of history or the ‘direction of history’, or more commonly in the name of pragmatism and political cynicism, that they are out of date, then all of Marxism collapses. It still provides a vocabulary, an ideology, but no longer has (theoretical) veracity. In the present theoretical and practical situation, this paradox, brought to a peak, becomes a contradiction that is glaring yet pushed into obscurity by all means possible; Marx’s thought, which elaborated the concept of ideology and sought to eliminate all ideology, has been changed into ideology; the radical critique of the state by Marx, Engels and Lenin has been changed into a state doctrine.

Lefebvre, Henri. Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche: Or the Realm of Shadows (pp. 119-120). Verso Books. Kindle Edition.

In 1975, as had been the case since 1918, the Communist state was not about to wither away… until it surprisingly did so in 1991.

Levebvre blames this on Hegel:

The most risky point of Leninism, which passes for its strong point, is its theory of knowledge and the party. Knowledge belongs to the intellectuals. They possess concepts, theory, scientific terminology. The working class, unable to go beyond blind spontaneity, receives knowledge from outside. By what mediation? The political party, support or subject of knowledge, transmits this to the workers, communicating it, making it accessible, while not ceasing to possess it. Now the political party, along with the state and under cover of the state, tends to set itself above society. Experience shows this and theory can prove it. Every political party, whether knowing it or not, is Hegelian in its essence. Marxism has thus been permeated by the Hegelian theory of knowledge….

Lefebvre, Henri. Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche: Or the Realm of Shadows (pp. 123-124). Verso Books. Kindle Edition.

Marx is not dead because Marxist non-theory is protean. Marxism is an attitude that can change:

In fact and in truth, ‘Marxism’ does not act in the modern world as a system already here, present like a rock. It acts like a germ, a ferment. This living being transforms itself; it spreads germs and ferments that diversify, that die or degenerate here or there, but prosper elsewhere.

Lefebvre, Henri. Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche: Or the Realm of Shadows (p. 99). Verso Books. Kindle Edition.

Perhaps the word that Lefebvre was looking for was “virus.”

IV. The Nietzsche File
According to Lefebvre, in the early 20th century, in France, Nietzscheanism was a “kind of anarchistic Leftism.” It came to mean an elitist attitude and the formation of a new aristocracy.

Nietzsche’s attitudes were contradictory. On the one hand, he should have seen Bismarck as proof of the “will to power.”

https://medium.com/@peterseanEsq/phil...

[Brennen · Rating 5 out of 5]

The most clear (and beautifully written!) analysis I’ve seen of these philosophers and their ties to one another. Lefebvre’s approach of looking at œuvres rather than picking-and-choosing (systematizing) the works of Marx and Nietzsche in particular illuminate their successes and failures. Recommended for anyone with the slightest interest in radical politics or metaphilosophy. Also speaks to a lot of the same concerns as Deleuze and Guattari

[Salvador Ramírez · Rating 4 out of 5]

Este libro es un ensayo filosófico de Henri Lefebvre, el cual se centra en sintetizar el cómo comprender el mundo a través de Hegel, Marx y Nietzche. Se encuentra dividido en cinco capítulos. En el primero expone la idea de triadas, como una herramienta dialéctica, y como la utilizara a lo largo del texto. Los capítulos 2 a 4 se trata de las lecturas que tiene de Hegel, Marx y Nietzche. El capítulo final, son las conclusiones.

Este libro, en este sentido, muestra los fundamentos filosóficos del pensamiento de Lefebvre. En el se aprecia que tenía una muy buena lectura e interpretación de Marx. Pareciera que tenía una lectura menos refinada de Hegel, incurriendo en diversas malas interpretaciones. Mientras de Nietzche tenía una lectura de izquierda de su pensamiento. El resultado de ello, es una forma original y peculiar de filosofía marxista, que se plasma en sus diversas obras.

Un apunte peculiar es que su síntesis en ciertos aspectos pareciera acercarse al planteamiento de Slavoj Žižek, que conjuga a Hegel, Marx y Lacan. Sin embargo, al tomar a Nietzche y debido a su interpretación de Hegel, también difiere ampliamente. No es que Lefebvre no conociera el psicoanálisis, pero lo lee a través de Freud y de manera negativa. Y al rechazarlo, opta por Nitzche para redondear sus planteamiento.

Un libro altamente recomendable para quiénes deseen adentrase dentro de los fundamentos del pensamiento de Lefebvre.

[Saul Walt · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fair and broad, albeit idiosyncratic, overview of the different thinkers. Though, there is much more to life and reason than optimistic Nietzschean madness, poetry, sensuality, overthrowing capital, and conspiring against Hegel all while stripping him for parts. Nonetheless, there are some really beautiful moments in the book. I also enjoyed seeing Bataille's thought incorporated.

[Maryam AlHajri · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very interesting read, that goes beyond Lefebver’s writings on the everyday, space and cultural studies. This work shows clearly the broader reach of Lefebver’s theoretical endeavor, and the influence of the three thinkers -Nietzsche, Hegel, Marx- on his works. I really loved the introduction by Suart Elden in Verso’s 2020 edition of the book.

[Ellie Davies · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a comprehensive and very clever complication of the shared dynamics between these 3 massive names in modern philosophy. I really appreciated the author’s ability to highlight the similarities as well as differences each holds towards the state, the individual etc. It was a bit dry but what did I expect eh.

[Rudy Herrera · Rating 3 out of 5]

To be honest, the best part of this book is his political analysis of Hegel. But it is difficult to see if that is really the truth without investigating his work for yourself. Outside of that this book is pretty surface level and it demands you have more of a background in his work because he talks about concepts like “space” and “everyday life” so frequently.

[Gabriel Rutherford · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent, towering work of theory on the three prominent German philosophers of the 19th century. The Hegel bits tend to drift into gibberish, and the late emergence of Continental jargon is unwelcome, but overall a surprisingly readable and very informative work.

[Carlos García · Rating 4 out of 5]

El bueno, el malo y el feo

[Sam · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5

Modernity is the child of the German tradition of philosophy, or so says monsieur Lefebvre

[Michael Brennan · Rating 4 out of 5]

A challenging read, but worth the effort.

[Luke · Rating 5 out of 5]

“necessity is both as true and as false as chance, and repetition as true as difference.“

This cuts to the most important difference between Hegel and Nietszche. Lefebvre has all kinds of brilliant sentences like this. They seem objective and as if he is not to blame for its eloquence, but he is. This is why Baudrillard followed his example in some ways. Lefebvre is a student, but also gets all the idiosyncrasies. He gets these philosophers ideologically, politically, and as people.

It would be easy to make a text like this into some personalized revolutionary manifesto. Of all the great accurate critiques of Nietzsche this one seems the most poised and focused. Most who put Nietzsche above Hegel with eyes open, tend to get emotionally carried away to exemplify Nietzsche, to the detriment of the actual philosophical critique. While I still have Hegel just above Nietzsche in influence and understanding I can respect exactly how and why Lefebvre uses him to conclude philosophy on the note of slain idealism.

[Frobisher Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

Lefebvre argues here that the modern world we live in is bounded by the philosophies of Hegel, Marx, and Nietzsche. Separately, these philosophies are incomplete and partially applicable to the reality we see today. But, taken together, can be seen as an almost inescapable philosophical penumbra which we all operate under. Today one can see easily that they are the Hegelian subject, the Marxist class identity, and the Nietzschean body, all at once and seemingly unavoidably. This shadow realm is bounded up with the State, with Capital, and with Will. Yet there is light beyond this, Lefebvre insists. Beyond the realm of shadows is the possibility of the production of space, and of a "double breakthrough," of both the objective and subjective worlds -- of a world not as political, as ideational, but as a truly social and poetic space.

This is a deep and deftly woven discussion of, in Lefebvre's estimation, the three most unavoidably important philosophers of our contemporary era. His reading of Nietzsche is regarded as particularly influential, being one of the earliest "leftist" interpretations. He makes a point to note, in this book, his disagreement with Lukács, whose critique of Nietzsche from the left is quite harsh. However, it was his section on Hegel here that I personally found most interesting and informative. All in all this is an amazing and engaging work that I recommend to anyone remotely interested in Philosophy.

[Roberto Yoed · Rating 4 out of 5]

He gets everything... except for Marx.