HEGEL VE MARX’TA ÖZGÜRLÜK OLARAK EMEK

Year 2018, Issue: 25, 367 - 381, 01.04.2018

Gaye İlhan Demiryol

Abstract

Bu makale birbiriyle ilintili üç savdan oluşmaktadır. İlk olarak, hem Hegel hem de Marx'ın, emek faaliyetini toplumsal ilişkilerin merkezine yerleştirdiği ve modern endüstriyel toplumdaki üretim ilişkilerinin doğasını benzer şekilde ele aldığı iddia edilmektedir. İkinci olarak, bu benzerliklere rağmen, iki düşünürün özgürlük anlayışları önemli ölçüde farklılık göstermektedir. Üçüncü ve son olarak, iki düşünürün modern toplumun değerlendirmelerinin birbirinden büyük ölçüde farklı olduğu sonucuna varılmaktadır. Hegel için özgürlüğün gerçekleşmesi devlet seviyesinde gerçekleşen, benliğin kendisini bütün olarak kavradığı bir an anlamına gelir. Marx’ın özgürlük anlayışı ise benliğin emek faaliyetinde teyit edilmesidir. Sonuç olarak, Hegel için siyasal alan modern toplumun çelişkilerinin çözüldüğü bir alana dönüşür; Marx'ın toplumsal kuramı ise yalnızca modern üretim ilişkilerini eleştirmekle kalmayıp bu ilişkilerin tümden dönüştürülmesini mecbur kılar

Keywords

Marx, Hegel, Emek, İş, Özgürlük

LABOR AS FREEDOM IN HEGEL AND MARX

Abstract

This article makes three interrelated points. First, I argue that both Hegel and Marx construct the activity of labor as central to social relations and view the nature of production relations in modern industrial society similarly. Second, despite these similarities, their understandings of freedom differ significantly. Hence and third, I conclude that their respective evaluations of modern society is drastically different from one another. Whereas for Hegel, actualization of freedom requires self’s realization of itself as the totality; a moment that takes place at the level of the state; Marx comprehends freedom as the self’s being affirmed in its activity. While the political realm becomes a resolution of the tensions of the modern society for Hegel, Marx‘s social theory not only involves a critique of the modern production relations but also requires their transformation

Keywords

Marx, Hegel, Labor, Work, Freedom

References

• Avineri, Shlomo. Hegel’s Theory of the Modern State. London: Cambridge University Press, 1974.
• Avineri, Shlomo. “Labor, Alienation and Social Classes in Hegel’s Realphilosophie.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 1, no. 1 (1971): 96–119.
• Avineri, Shlomo. The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx. 1st edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968.
• Habermas, Jürgen. Theory and Practice. Translated by John Viertel. Boston: Beacon Press, 1974.
• Hegel, G.W.F. Elements of the Philosophy of Right. Edited by Allen W. Wood. Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought. Cambridge England; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
• Hegel, G.W.F. “The Philosophy of Spirit.” In Hegel and the Human Spirit: A Translation of the Jena Lectures on the Philosophy of Spirit (1805-6) with Commentary, First Edition., 83–182. Detroit: Wayne State Univ Press, 1983.
• Honneth, Axel. The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts. Translated by Joel Anderson. Cambridge, Mass: Polity Press, 1995.
• Kolakowski, Leszek. Main Currents of Marxism: Its Rise, Growth and Dissolution Volume 1: The Founders. Translated by P. S. Falla. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 1981.
• Marx, Karl. “Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844.” In The MarxEngels Reader, 2nd Revised & Enlarged edition., 66–125. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1978.
• Marx, Karl. “The German Ideology: Part I.” In The Marx-Engels Reader, 2nd Revised & Enlarged edition., 146–200. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1978.
• Rauch, Leo. “Introduction: On Hegel’s Concept of Spirit.” In Hegel and the Human Spirit: A Translation of the Jena Lectures on the Philosophy of Spirit (1805-6) with Commentary, First Edition., 15–80. Detroit: Wayne State Univ Press, 1983.
• Wood, Allen W. “Editor’s Introduction.” In Elements of the Philosophy of Right, vii–xxxii. Cambridge England; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
• Wood, Allen W. Hegel’s Ethical Thought. Cambridge England ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990.