Reading marxist junk is a frustrating experience. After the near fanaticism of historical materialism, marxists are forced to turn around and do Hegel dabbling, and it is mostly more confusion than anything else. Actually the take here is of interest, and exhibits some interesting Hegelian interpretations, but it is mostly in vain at this point.
I have recommended over and over again that if you are going to try and extend marxism with philosophy, do it right by adopting a much larger perspective, starting with the whole of German classical philosophy. Why should materialists get fussy and reject Kant for Hegel, and ignore Schopenhauer? There is a good historical reason for the conrfusion: Marx/Engels were at the tail end of the Hegel era, which had tried to displace Kant, in vain.
I think that the effort to absorb Hegel into marxism (here Zizek is a good case) simply confuses Hegel and muddles marxism. If marxism is inadequate, we should leave it behind.
I have advocated the idea of the special place of modernity in world history and the need for a revolutionary communism to move beyond marxism, historical materialism, etc, and to adopt the full spectrum of modernist perspectives, religion/reformation, science, liberalism/socialism, capitalism/communism, German classical philosophy (with subtexts of Spinoza), the Enlightenment and the romantic movement: there is much more. This approach will create more than an ideology: it will create a potential social sphere.
We have spoken of floating fourth turning points: mega-revolutions that create whole cultures in the context of postcapitalism, a larger framework than ‘revolution’. In any case, trying to patch holes in marxism with Hegel is a very odd and fruitless endeavor. Why exclude Kant? The idea that Hegel somehow replace Kant is ridiculous. And if you tackle idealism, Kantian versions have built in safeguards against the kind of confusion that Hegel inflicted on a whole generation. That’s not a rejection of Hegel as such, but a warning he is very difficult and can never be understood without a deep knowledge of Kant. And the issues of history asked by Kant, what I call Kant’s challenge, were not answered by Hegel: my eonic effect model answers those. Hegel is of interest nontheless, but Kant and Schopenhauer should be a better starting point. The issue of teleology requires a careful look at transcendental idealism.
One says all this, but it is hopeless. I have discussed all this in Last and First Men, but didn’t get a single chance to discuss it. Reading this junk at Redline is so tiresome it is hard to endure. Marxists are closed in a cult and they are beyond rescue. I don’t wish to be unfair, but marxism is confused enough, stirring in Hegel (and Zizek contributed to terminal confusion here) is the last act of muddle.