Summary Essay of Marx's Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right

Written in the year 1843, while the ideas were still fluid and without distinct and concrete form,
Marx's critiue of Hegel's Philosophy of Right allows a small gleam into his early thoughts on the true
origins of the state and the !art the !eo!le !lay in creating its form" #anging from the true foundation
of the state to the role of democracy as the true form of go$ernment, Marx $igorously attem!ts to
dis!el the $eil of mysticism that lur%ed &ehind go$ernments &oth then and now"
Starting off with the idea of ci$il as state society, Marx re&u%es the oft contended idea that it is
the state that creates and sustains ci$il society" 'ontrary to what many !hiloso!hers and ruling classes
ha$e claimed and &elie$ed, it was the !eo!le and the social &onds they create which &uild and nourish
the state" (t is the inter!ersonal &onds at their sim!lest ) the family unit ) which gi$e rise to the
sim!lest form of state society" (n other words, it is the human condition at its most &asic and natural
which allows the a&straction called the state to exist at all"
#ather than the to!*&ottom a!!roach utili+ed &y countless des!ots, Marx em&raced the &ottom*
u! !ers!ecti$e which saw the content as the gi$er of form instead of the other way around" Where
!oliticians saw the form, the a&stract, as the real, this common sense a!!roach saw the content as the
only real thing, it saw that -family and ci$il society are the !remises of the state". /he state is
inca!a&le of o!erating under its own !ower and guidance for it is nothing &ut a soulless $ehicle" 0nce
the $ehicle starts to o!erate without in!ut from its !assengers then disastrous results are &ound to
ha!!en as it attem!ts to !erform actions it was ne$er designed or intended to do"
'ause and effect !lay a significant role in Marx's !olitical &eliefs, in ways that dare the common
!erson to find a way to disagree with him" /he history of human go$ernment !ro$ides !lenty of
exam!les of -s!eculati$e !hiloso!hy.1 the !hiloso!hy which stands cause and effect on its head and
!osits that the cause ) the masses ) is actually the effect ) the state" 2ust as with religion, it is not the
!olitical state that creates man &ut man that creates the state" 3i$en that the state is nothing &ut a mere
a&straction, an entity &rought forth &y the will and &onds of the !eo!le, it reuires an effort of logic to
see how this mystification too% !lace"
/his re$ersal of roles attem!ts to ro& the !eo!le of their so$ereignty &y forcing them to &elie$e
in a foundation other than themsel$es" /he natural flow of family to ci$il to state is disru!ted when the
creator succum&s to his creation instead of controlling it" 4eing an artificial creation the state must rest
solely on the -!eo!le 5which6 alone is what is concrete". /hus, any attri&ute which is gi$en to the state,
such as so$ereignty, must first &e gi$en to the !eo!le1 or else the state loses its a&straction and instead
wra!s the !eo!le in it" /his constant tension &etween a&straction and reality leads to the constant &attle
&etween form and content, &etween those go$ernments of the democratic $ein and those of the
monarchical $ein"
Monarchies are the outward form of false content, they see% to create the content in their own
image, to create a social character rather than flow from it" #ather than &ase itself on the li$ing,
monarchies choose to &ase themsel$es on dead ideas ) ideas that do not reflect reality" /his se!aration
from its source is the ultimate exam!le of !olitical mystification, the ultimate exam!le of the creation
turning from its creator ) the !olitical $ersion of the golem turning against its ma%er" /his unnatural
di$orce of content from form leads to !olitical constitutions which attem!t to mold ci$il society in the
image of the state"
'ontrast this !olitical !hiloso!hy with democratic constitutions and it &ecomes easily $isi&le
how democracies are &ut an externali+ed character of their content" #ather than fight the social flow,
which is attem!ting to create !olitical form and life, democracies em&race their social foundations and
inherently ada!t their form to match their content" 3o$ernment &ecomes nothing more than a facsimile
of the !eo!le" While des!otic go$ernments, on the other hand, &elie$e that so$ereignty rests in
themsel$es democracies e&& and flow with the li$es of their &asis1 they understand on a fundamental
le$el that the so$ereignty of the monarch is not a !recondition of the state, the state may $ery well exist
if so$ereignty rests solely in the hands of the !eo!le"
States at their $ery core ha$e democracy as their truth and guiding light, and, as such, states
such as monarchies are untrue and in dar%ness when they are not outwardly democratic" 7emocratic
states ) notwithstanding re!u&lics which are mere a&stractions of actual democracies ) are the -genus
'onstitution. and as such are the only true -free !roduct of man". 4eing the result of a free !eo!le who
act within the natural !ower accorded to them, democratic states are inherently fluid and e$er*
changing" 7emocracies are the will of the !eo!le gi$en form ) form following function ) while
monarchies are the will of the idea attem!ting to create content" (n other words, the -!olitical state 8
no longer !asses for the whole".