The Basic Dialectical Tension (1945-1956): Three Paths out of a Contradiction

Kai Froeb2026

This text is a preview of History of the Reception of Hegel, volume II, to be published in 2026 by Reflexivity Press.

The Central Contradiction

From the outset the GDR faced a performative contradiction:

On the one hand: The GDR claimed to be the “dialectical” state. Marxism was said to be the synthesis of Hegel’s dialectic and Feuerbach’s materialism. Hence: Hegel belongs to one’s own tradition.

On the other hand: Stalin had declared in 1944 (at a secret conference of the Central Committee of the CPSU) that Hegel was “aristocratic reaction against the French Revolution,” a forerunner of fascism, and had had no influence on Marx.[1] This position was disseminated in 1952 in the German edition of the “Great Soviet Encyclopedia”: Hegel = reactionary, mystifying, German-nationalist.[2]

The problem: How can one be dialectical without Hegel? Or more precisely: how can one claim to learn from Hegel when the victorious power says Hegel is reactionary?

This contradiction was not abstract. It was existential for every GDR philosopher who thought seriously. Three positions emerged as attempts at an answer:

Position 1: Stalinist Orthodoxy (Rugard Otto Gropp)

Rugard Otto Gropp (1907-1976), professor in Leipzig, concentration-camp survivor, formulated the harshest line in 1954 in the Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie: “The Marxist Dialectical Method and Its Opposition to Hegel’s Idealist Dialectic.”[3]

His solution to the contradiction: reject Hegel entirely. Dialectics came directly from Marx, Lenin, Stalin—not from Hegel. Whoever invoked Hegel was a “Hegelian” like Lassalle (an opportunist who wanted to divert workers from the class struggle). Engagement with Hegel was “class struggle on philosophical terrain.”[4]

The inner contradiction of this position: Marx and Engels themselves had constantly praised Hegel. Marx: Hegel “grasps the self-creation of man as a process… hence the essence of labor.”[5] Engels: “The German workers’ movement is the heir of German classical philosophy.”[6] Gropp thus had to claim that Marx and Engels had misunderstood themselves—or that Stalin was wiser than they were.

The absurdity culminated in the fact that Stalin had never put this position in writing. When Ernst Bloch inquired of Erich Wendt where he might find Stalin’s judgment on Hegel in print, the search proved fruitless.[7] There was no source—only rumors, party-congress speeches, unofficial directives.

Position 2: Reform Marxism (Bloch, Harich, Lukács)

The counter-position was formulated by Ernst Bloch (Leipzig), Wolfgang Harich (Berlin), and—from Budapest—Georg Lukács. Their solution: return to Hegel in order to understand Marx.

Wolfgang Harich, editor-in-chief of the Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie (1953-1956), wrote to Lukács in May 1954: “Well, I’m going to strike back hard.”[8] Gropp and his allies were meant to take the blows. Harich publicly proclaimed that Hegel was no philosopher of restoration but “the intellectual forerunner of the democratic-revolutionary opposition, first of Heine and then also of the young Marx.”[9]

Ernst Bloch, even more bluntly, later said: “I won’t let anyone shit on Hegel!”—a remark aimed, indirectly, at Stalin himself.[10]

The Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie (1953-1956) became the forum for this position. Editors: Arthur Baumgarten, Ernst Bloch, Wolfgang Harich, Karl Schröter. The concept: an all-German forum for Marxist intellectuals, intended “through the highest possible standard” to win over the philosophically interested intelligentsia to Marxist thought.[11]

The journal published work of international caliber: Klaus Zweiling criticized Lenin’s concept of matter (in 1953!), Lukács defended Hegel against Schelling, Werner Krauss wrote on “Karl Marx in the Vormärz.”[12] This was free Marxist scholarly discourse—not propaganda, but differentiated development of problems.

The inner contradiction of this position: It presupposed that the Party would tolerate self-criticism. But a party that understood itself as the “vanguard” could not bear criticism. Reform Marxism was systemically impossible in a state that treated freedom as a danger.

Position 3: The Niche of Natural Philosophy (Ruben, Warnke, Wahsner)

The third position was more tactical: use Hegel for philosophy of science, not for social theory. This was less politically dangerous.

Peter Ruben (b. 1933) developed, from the 1960s onward, a philosophy of labor: science as “general labor,” dialectics (dealing with the concrete) versus analytics (dealing with abstractions, mathematics).[13] This was highly Hegelian, but applicable to physics, biology, mathematics—not to politics.

Camilla Warnke worked on dialectics and systems thinking, Renate Wahsner on Hegel’s philosophy of nature in light of modern physics.[14] This work was philosophically demanding and internationally received—but politically inconspicuous (at first).

The inner contradiction of this position: Even the philosophy of labor has political implications. If labor is self-creation (as in Hegel), then workers are subjects, not objects of party leadership. The SED later became aware of this—leading to the Ruben Affair (1980-1981).

The Hegel Debate (1954-1956): Gropp Loses

When Gropp published his attack in 1954, the editors of the DZfPh opened the article “for discussion”—against the recommendation of Kurt Hager (Politburo).[15] A lively and by no means one-sided discussion followed, running from issue 3/1954 to 4/1957.[16]

Against Gropp (the majority): Auguste Cornu, Fritz Behrens, Wolfgang Schubardt, Erhard Albrecht, Wolfgang Mönke, Helmut Seidel, Klaus Gäbler, Iring Fetscher, Jürgen Kuczynski.

For Gropp (the minority): Josef Schleifstein, Joachim Höppner.

Ernst Bloch summarized the outcome in 1957: “Six participants in the discussion […] partly with the sharpest rejection, against Gropp’s view […] and only two […] in favor of it.”[17]

The debate was a philosophical defeat for Stalinist orthodoxy. But it did not end philosophically—it ended politically.

The Abrupt End: Hungary 1956

On November 14, 1956, Ernst Bloch delivered a Hegel address at Berlin’s Humboldt University to mark the philosopher’s 125th anniversary of death. The date was no coincidence: it fell in the middle of the Hungarian uprising. Soviet tanks had entered Budapest on November 4, and Imre Nagy had been arrested.[18]

Bloch spoke nonetheless—or precisely for that reason. His message: “Such core ideas [of Hegel’s] have never passed away, and whoever turns to them is not looking backward, but grasping […] the unredeemed, the genuine problem.”[19] This was a coded appeal: to take Hegel seriously means recognizing the unredeemed—even within socialism.

Fifteen days later, on November 29, 1956, Wolfgang Harich was arrested. Five days after the second Soviet invasion of Budapest, the SED Politburo had decided: put an end to the debate.[20]

Issue 5/1956 of the Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie was confiscated. It was to have contained articles by Bloch, Harich, Fritz Bassenge, and Hermann Klenner—all defending Hegel against the Stalinist line. The issue never appeared. Instead, in February 1957 a “double issue 5-6/1956” was published—with a new editor-in-chief, and without the censored articles.[21]

Show trials followed in March 1957: Wolfgang Harich received ten years’ imprisonment for “forming a counterrevolutionary group.” Co-defendants: Walter Janka (head of the Aufbau publishing house), Gustav Just, Erich Loest. In the audience: Anna Seghers, Helene Weigel.[22]

Ernst Bloch was forced into retirement in 1957. In 1961, at the time the Wall was built, he fled to West Berlin (at the age of 76!). Hans Mayer, also attacked, followed later.[23]

The editors of the Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie (Baumgarten, Bloch, Harich, Schröter) were removed—without comment. The journal continued to appear, but under new leadership. In the lead article of issue 1/1957 the new editorial board mocked “mediation-addicted quackeries”—an allusion to the Hegel debate. Hegelian “mediation” was said to be dangerous; one could not reconcile “what simply cannot be reconciled.”[24]

The “spring of philosophy” was over. The reform Marxists had been arrested, driven out, or silenced. A new generation emerged—Wolfgang Heise, Götz Redlow, Hermann Scheler, Gottfried Stiehler—but under different auspices. The lesson had been learned: Hegel yes, but carefully. No more open criticism of Stalin. Only detailed research, editorial work, natural philosophy remained.

Systematic Assessment of the Basic Tension

The contradiction of 1945-1956 was not accidental but systematic:

  1. The GDR could not reject Hegel (because Marx and Engels had invoked him).
  2. The GDR could not take Hegel seriously (because that would have demanded self-criticism, freedom, recognition).
  3. So the GDR instrumentalized Hegel: dialectics yes (as method), but emancipation no (as content).

This worked only under coercion. As soon as philosophers actually read Hegel (like Bloch, Harich, Ruben), they arrived at criticism of the system. That is why the system had to silence these philosophers.

The lesson (in light of our interpretation of Hegel): one cannot use Hegel selectively. Dialectics is not a technique separable from its content. Whoever applies Hegel’s method must also accept his principles: self-criticism as the motor of development, freedom as the condition of truth, mutual recognition as the structure of reason. A system that rejects these cannot have Hegelian dialectics—only a travesty of it.

  1. See Volume 1, Chapter 16.2. The formulation does not stem directly from Stalin (there is no original text) but was popularized by Zhdanov: Andrei A. Zhdanov, “On the History of Philosophy” (1947). ↩︎

  2. Great Soviet Encyclopedia, German edition, Berlin 1952, quoted in: Hedtke, “Skizze zur Geschichte der Hegel-Literatur in der DDR.” ↩︎

  3. Rugard Otto Gropp, “Die marxistische dialektische Methode und ihr Gegensatz zur idealistischen Dialektik Hegels,” Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie 2 (1954), issue 1, pp. 69–112; issue 2, pp. 344–383. ↩︎

  4. Gropp, “Die marxistische dialektische Methode,” pp. 69–70. ↩︎

  5. Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, MEW Supplementary Volume I, p. 574. ↩︎

  6. Friedrich Engels, “Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy” (1886), MEW 21, p. 307. ↩︎

  7. Helle Panke (ed.), Wolfgang Harich und Georg Lukács. Wege zu einem neuen Marxismus, Berlin 2016, p. 18. ↩︎

  8. Quoted in: nd-aktuell, “Ich lasse auf Hegel nicht scheißen,” January 24, 2023. ↩︎

  9. Wolfgang Harich, “Die Lehre von Marx und die Bildung der Intelligenz,” Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie 2 (1954), issue 2, pp. 347–378. ↩︎

  10. Quoted in: nd-aktuell, “Ich lasse auf Hegel nicht scheißen,” January 24, 2023. ↩︎

  11. Wolfgang Harich, letter to Georg Lukács, August 14, 1953, quoted in: Hedtke, “Skizze zur Geschichte der Hegel-Literatur in der DDR.” ↩︎

  12. Cf. the overview in: Hedtke, “Skizze zur Geschichte der Hegel-Literatur in der DDR.” ↩︎

  13. Peter Ruben, “Von der ‘Wissenschaft der Logik’ und dem Verhältnis der Dialektik zur Logik,” in: Hermann Ley (ed.), Zum Hegelverständnis unserer Zeit, Berlin 1972, pp. 235–260. ↩︎

  14. Renate Wahsner, “Zur Kritik der Hegelschen Naturphilosophie. Über ihren Sinn im Lichte der heutigen Naturerkenntnis,” Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 1996; Camilla Warnke, “Dialektik und Systemdenken in der Gesellschaftserkenntnis” (Habilitation thesis, 1980). ↩︎

  15. Cf. Hedtke, “Skizze zur Geschichte der Hegel-Literatur in der DDR.” ↩︎

  16. Federal Agency for Civic Education, “Das Verhältnis des Marxismus zu Hegel. Politische Hintergründe einer philosophischen Diskussion,” Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 20/1958. ↩︎

  17. Ernst Bloch, “Offener Brief an Bezirksleitung der SED Leipzig,” January 22, 1957, quoted in: Hedtke, “Skizze zur Geschichte der Hegel-Literatur in der DDR.” ↩︎

  18. Alexander Solzhenitsyn: The Gulag Archipelago, Paris: YMCA-Press, 1973–1975 (3 vols.). ↩︎

  19. Ernst Bloch, “Hegel-Ehrung zum 125. Todestag” (November 14, 1956), quoted in: Hedtke, “Skizze zur Geschichte der Hegel-Literatur in der DDR.” ↩︎

  20. Guntolf Herzberg, “Wolfgang Harich - eine philosophische Wiederentdeckung,” Helle Panke, issue 146, Berlin 2017. ↩︎

  21. Cf. the documentation in: Guntolf Herzberg, “Wolfgang Harich und die Gruppe Harich,” Helle Panke, issue 146, Berlin 2017. ↩︎

  22. German History in Documents and Images, “Der Philosophieprofessor Wolfgang Harich (Dezember 1956).” ↩︎

  23. Federal Agency for Civic Education, “Die intellektuelle Opposition in der DDR seit 1956. Ernst Bloch – Wolfgang Harich – Robert Havemann,” Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 45/1977. ↩︎

  24. “Leitartikel,” Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie 5 (1957), issue 1, quoted in: Hedtke, “Skizze zur Geschichte der Hegel-Literatur in der DDR.” ↩︎