正在学习

Hegel, the Rich Rabble, and Lumpen-Bourgeois Rule

Hegel “depicts a rich rabble of English landowners as having dispossessed the subsistence-farming peasantry”: Then, while the “English Reform Bill” of the title of Hegel’s essay promises democratic gains through the widening of the franchise for British Parliamentary elections, the just-mentioned dispossession process creates a situation in which this “reform” makes it likely that a wealthy Pöbel will manipulate a gullible impoverished populace whose poverty leaves them vulnerable to demagoguery and the like. Thus, seeming progress towards greater democracy, through a bad cunning of reason, probably will lead to actual tyranny in the guise of mob rule by a mob itself ruled by the socially irresponsible rich. Hegel ends this essay predicting that this particular piece of English legislation will lead not to a desirable and peaceful reform, but to an undesirable and bloody revolution.5 Johnston is right to read Hegel backward. Although Hegel’s doubt about the English Reform Bill is motivated by his vision of a state divided into estates and thus opposed to liberal egalitarianism (each individual can participate in the universal political sphere only through his/her belonging to a specific estate; s/he should have no direct participation in the universality that bypasses the hierarchic order of estates), he foresaw the anti-egalitarian corruption of the universal right to vote, which occurs when the “rich rabble” manipulate the poor, as is the case in today’s nationalist populism. The so-called oligarchs in Russia and other post-Communist countries are another case of rich rabble; they are not even an authentic creative bourgeoisie, rather they are a bourgeois counterpart to what Marx called lumpen-proletariat: lumpen-bourgeoisie. It was lumpen-bourgeoisie that exploded in post-Communist countries from the late 1980s on, through wild “privatizations,” etc. In Slovenia, the exemplary case of a lumpen-bourgeois is the “independent tax adviser” Rok Snežič, a collaborator and friend of Rightist Janez Janša, the current prime minister of Slovenia. Snežič advises Slovene companies on how to move their seat to Republika Srpska (the Serb part of Bosnia), where taxes are lower than in Slovenia, but he is prohibited to enter the territory of Bosnia because of crime allegations against him. Snežič is the main suspect of an investigation into an international money laundering network. While he declared bankruptcy, has no private possessions, and successfully avoids paying a million Euros in taxes, Snežič drives new luxury cars and pays for jumbo road posters. He has no bank account and is officially employed at a company owned by his wife, with a monthly salary of €373.62, paid in cash. But is such a trend toward lumpen-bourgeoisie not a global trend of today’s “normal” capitalism? Are figures like Trump and Musk not also lumpen-billionaires? When Jean-Pierre Dupuy wrote that Trump’s election “revealed a state of American society that would have remained hidden had Clinton won,” he formulates the reason why, in 2016, I supported Trump.6 President Volodymyr Zelensky “has said western countries are more concerned with the economic impact of rising energy prices than with the deaths of innocent Ukrainians as he denounced the latest wave of sanctions against Russia.”7 Well, it took Zelensky a long time to get how global capitalism and democracy really work, despite Russian gas flowing to Europe through Ukraine. Sooner or later we’ll need measures usually associated with War Communism—an emergency state in which the government directly controls key areas of production and reproduction, bypassing market rules. Keep in mind that the Russian attack on Ukraine for the global supply of wheat is a double catastrophe: The two states are not just the greatest exporters of wheat in the world, but also the main sources of chemical fertilizers for Europe, and one can only imagine what this could mean for Europe’s harvest. To put it brutally, there is only one serious solution: Our states have to act without relying on market mechanisms and directly organize the production of fertilizers. The paradox is that only such War Communism measures can save our freedoms, not the capitalist market, which is the same market that allows Russian gas to flow through Ukraine to Europe even while the war is ravaging. We should also consider the financial motivations behind the Ukrainian war: the Russian demand that its oil and gas be paid in rubles is a coordinated attempt with China to depose of the U.S. dollar and the euro as global currencies and replace them with the Chinese yuan. Ukraine will have to realize sooner or later that since Western solidarity is limited by economic interests, it is not enough to just “defend Europe.” Ukraine is now quite literally defending Russia from a path of self-destruction imposed by Putin and his oligarchs. Such a stance in no way implies that we should harbor any illusions about the true aims of the Russian aggression, which are more and more publicly stated. In a recent comment titled “What Russia is obliged to do with Ukraine,”8 Timofey Sergejcev openly formulates that the premise for the Russian genocidal project in Ukraine is grounded in the fact that the “Nazification” of Ukraine is a European project, and “therefore the denazification of Ukraine is also its inevitable de-Europeanization”: Denazification is necessary when a significant part of the people – most likely the majority – has been mastered and drawn into the Nazi regime in its politics. That is when the hypothesis “the people are good – the government is bad” does not work. Denazification is a set of measures in relation to the Nazified mass of the population, which technically cannot be subjected to direct punishment as war criminals … lustration, publication of the names of accomplices of the Nazi regime, involving them in forced labor to restore the destroyed infrastructure as punishment for Nazi activities (from among those who will not be subject to the death penalty or imprisonment) … the name “Ukraine” apparently cannot be retained as the title of any fully denazified state entity in a territory liberated from the Nazi regime.

练习题

According to the passage, what social process does Hegel associate with the English landowning “rich rabble”?

A. They expanded subsistence farming by protecting peasant land rights.

B. They dispossessed the subsistence-farming peasantry.

C. They abolished parliamentary elections in Britain.

D. They created a peaceful egalitarian democracy through reform.

Why does the passage say Hegel opposed the liberal-egalitarian interpretation of political participation?

A. Because he believed individuals should participate in the universal political sphere only through their estate.

B. Because he thought all individuals should bypass estates and vote directly as isolated citizens.

C. Because he rejected all forms of political hierarchy and supported universal direct democracy.

D. Because he believed the English Reform Bill would immediately eliminate class power.

The passage describes post-Communist oligarchs as an authentic creative bourgeoisie rather than as a form of “rich rabble.”

The passage calls the bourgeois counterpart to Marx’s $lumpen-proletariat$ the ___.

Which claims about Ukraine, energy, food supply, and emergency economic measures are supported by the passage? Select all that apply.

A. Zelensky accused western countries of prioritizing the economic impact of energy prices over Ukrainian lives.

B. The passage argues that War Communism means direct government control over key areas of production and reproduction, bypassing market rules.

C. The passage presents the Ukraine war as a catastrophe for wheat and fertilizer supply.

D. The passage says the capitalist market alone will reliably protect freedoms during the crisis.

E. The passage argues that states should directly organize fertilizer production rather than rely on market mechanisms.

How does the passage connect the Ukraine war to both global finance and Russian ideology?

In the passage, why is Rok Snežič presented as an exemplary lumpen-bourgeois figure?

A. Because he is described as a subsistence farmer dispossessed by English landowners.

B. Because he is portrayed as a tax adviser linked to suspicious wealth, tax avoidance, and money-laundering allegations.

C. Because he organized War Communism measures to produce fertilizers in Slovenia.

D. Because he defended liberal egalitarianism against Hegel’s estate-based state.

Which statements correctly integrate Hegel’s Reform Bill critique with the passage’s broader account of populism and manipulation? Select all that apply.

A. Hegel feared that widening the franchise could be corrupted if a rich rabble manipulated an impoverished populace.

B. The passage links Hegel’s warning to today’s nationalist populism, where universal suffrage can be anti-egalitarianly corrupted.

C. Hegel’s concern was that democracy would fail because the poor were too wealthy to be influenced by demagoguery.

D. The passage’s account resembles the prior idea that technological manipulation and populism can exclude the liberal rational subject.

E. Hegel predicted the Reform Bill would lead not to peaceful reform but to bloody revolution.

The passage argues that because the market has kept Russian gas flowing through Ukraine during the war, market mechanisms are sufficient to solve the fertilizer, food-supply, and freedom crises.

Explain how the passage’s concept of $lumpen-bourgeoisie$ connects post-Communist oligarchs, Trump or Musk, and the earlier critique of oligarchic capitalism.

Which interpretation best connects the prior claim that Hegel’s Reform Bill essay warned of socio-historical regression with the current account of the English Reform Bill?

A. Hegel saw the Reform Bill as a purely successful expansion of democracy because universal voting rights automatically prevent elite domination.

B. Hegel feared that widening the franchise, under conditions of dispossession, could let a wealthy rabble manipulate the poor and turn democratic reform into tyranny.

C. Hegel opposed the Reform Bill only because he believed landowners should have no political role at all.

D. Hegel predicted that the Reform Bill would peacefully dissolve the estate system and establish liberal egalitarianism.

Which statements correctly integrate the discussion of contemporary right-wing populism from the prior section with the current section’s account of the “rich rabble” and lumpen-bourgeoisie?

A. The current section links Hegel’s “rich rabble” to today’s nationalist populism, where the rich manipulate the poor.

B. The prior section’s claim that alt-right populism relies on technological manipulation is compatible with the current section’s concern that democratic forms can be corrupted by manipulation.

C. The current section presents oligarchs in post-Communist countries as an authentic creative bourgeoisie opposed to lumpen-bourgeois practices.

D. The prior section’s discussion of Trumpian populism can be connected to the current section’s claim that figures like Trump may be understood as part of a broader lumpen-billionaire trend.

E. Both sections suggest that populist politics always restores the liberal rational subject who decides after rational deliberation.

The current section’s call for War Communism-style emergency control of production is conceptually opposed to the prior section’s claim that radical change requires relearning lessons from the past.

How does the current section’s discussion of oligarchs and lumpen-bourgeoisie develop the prior section’s claim that the West fears revolution because oligarchic structures are not uniquely Russian?

登录后解锁笔记、知识点解析、AI 问答

立即登录

Hegel, the Rich Rabble, and Lumpen-Bourgeois Rule

Hegel, the Rich Rabble, and Lumpen-Bourgeois Rule

练习题

According to the passage, what social process does Hegel associate with the English landowning “rich rabble”?

Why does the passage say Hegel opposed the liberal-egalitarian interpretation of political participation?

The passage describes post-Communist oligarchs as an authentic creative bourgeoisie rather than as a form of “rich rabble.”

The passage calls the bourgeois counterpart to Marx’s lumpen-proletariat the ___.

Which claims about Ukraine, energy, food supply, and emergency economic measures are supported by the passage? Select all that apply.

How does the passage connect the Ukraine war to both global finance and Russian ideology?

In the passage, why is Rok Snežič presented as an exemplary lumpen-bourgeois figure?

Which statements correctly integrate Hegel’s Reform Bill critique with the passage’s broader account of populism and manipulation? Select all that apply.

The passage argues that because the market has kept Russian gas flowing through Ukraine during the war, market mechanisms are sufficient to solve the fertilizer, food-supply, and freedom crises.

Explain how the passage’s concept of lumpen-bourgeoisie connects post-Communist oligarchs, Trump or Musk, and the earlier critique of oligarchic capitalism.

Which interpretation best connects the prior claim that Hegel’s Reform Bill essay warned of socio-historical regression with the current account of the English Reform Bill?

Which statements correctly integrate the discussion of contemporary right-wing populism from the prior section with the current section’s account of the “rich rabble” and lumpen-bourgeoisie?

The current section’s call for War Communism-style emergency control of production is conceptually opposed to the prior section’s claim that radical change requires relearning lessons from the past.

How does the current section’s discussion of oligarchs and lumpen-bourgeoisie develop the prior section’s claim that the West fears revolution because oligarchic structures are not uniquely Russian?

The passage calls the bourgeois counterpart to Marx’s $lumpen-proletariat$ the ___.

Explain how the passage’s concept of $lumpen-bourgeoisie$ connects post-Communist oligarchs, Trump or Musk, and the earlier critique of oligarchic capitalism.