Marxism - philosophy or hoax?
Marxism – philosophy or hoax?
I believe that politics is essentially about power and that political power tends to corrupt and dehumanize when it is not tempered by philosophical thought. Therefore, like Plato and others, I believe that politicians should be replaced with philosophers.
I would like to begin with Marxism because Marxism seems best suited to demonstrate my proposition.
Marxism is often considered to be a philosophical system and sometimes even as a “science” or is referred to as “scientific socialism”.
However, on closer examination, we find that there is no single theory of Marxism and even in Marx we find multiple theories, propositions and definitions that are often inconsistent and from which it is difficult to construct a coherent philosophical system. In fact, most of his works were either not published, some being turned down by publishers, or just not read and Marx does not appear to have been taken seriously, or even to have taken himself seriously, as a philosopher. Apparently, he even said that he was not a Marxist.
But there is more to it. As has been pointed out by numerous historians, it is clear from Marx and Engels’ own statements that they deliberately used suggestive language and ambiguous concepts (e. g. the nature of the state and its relation to its citizens in socialist or communist society) in order to deceive their audience about their true position or intention.
Richard Adamiack, ‘The “Withering Away” of the State: A Reconsideration’
Frederic L. Bender, “The Ambiguities of Marx’s concepts of ‘proletarian dictatorship’ and ‘transition to communism’”
We know that Marx as a student was rebellious and mischievous and that contemporary descriptions portray him as “intolerant”, “autocratic”, “malicious”, “domineering” and “power-obsessed”.
In short, could it be that Marxism is not a philosophy but an elaborate hoax designed to help Marx acquire influence and power, a hoax that perhaps started as a prank and later developed into something more serious?
It should be considered in this context that Marxism has sometimes been described as “messianic socialism”, i.e. as a quasi-religious system designed to instill messianic expectations in its followers, that both Marx and Engels advocated violent revolution and that they attempted to position themselves at the ideological forefront of the revolutionary movement which, if successful, would have placed them in a position of virtually absolute power. Historical evidence suggests that Marxism has been used precisely in this way by Marx and Engels’ successors from Lenin and Trotsky to Mao Zedong and others.
I believe that politics is essentially about power and that political power tends to corrupt and dehumanize when it is not tempered by philosophical thought. Therefore, like Plato and others, I believe that politicians should be replaced with philosophers.
I would like to begin with Marxism because Marxism seems best suited to demonstrate my proposition.
Marxism is often considered to be a philosophical system and sometimes even as a “science” or is referred to as “scientific socialism”.
However, on closer examination, we find that there is no single theory of Marxism and even in Marx we find multiple theories, propositions and definitions that are often inconsistent and from which it is difficult to construct a coherent philosophical system. In fact, most of his works were either not published, some being turned down by publishers, or just not read and Marx does not appear to have been taken seriously, or even to have taken himself seriously, as a philosopher. Apparently, he even said that he was not a Marxist.
But there is more to it. As has been pointed out by numerous historians, it is clear from Marx and Engels’ own statements that they deliberately used suggestive language and ambiguous concepts (e. g. the nature of the state and its relation to its citizens in socialist or communist society) in order to deceive their audience about their true position or intention.
Richard Adamiack, ‘The “Withering Away” of the State: A Reconsideration’
Frederic L. Bender, “The Ambiguities of Marx’s concepts of ‘proletarian dictatorship’ and ‘transition to communism’”
We know that Marx as a student was rebellious and mischievous and that contemporary descriptions portray him as “intolerant”, “autocratic”, “malicious”, “domineering” and “power-obsessed”.
In short, could it be that Marxism is not a philosophy but an elaborate hoax designed to help Marx acquire influence and power, a hoax that perhaps started as a prank and later developed into something more serious?
It should be considered in this context that Marxism has sometimes been described as “messianic socialism”, i.e. as a quasi-religious system designed to instill messianic expectations in its followers, that both Marx and Engels advocated violent revolution and that they attempted to position themselves at the ideological forefront of the revolutionary movement which, if successful, would have placed them in a position of virtually absolute power. Historical evidence suggests that Marxism has been used precisely in this way by Marx and Engels’ successors from Lenin and Trotsky to Mao Zedong and others.
Comments (61)
Hi. Marx and Engels were philosophers. I recommend making no more of the word 'Marxism' than of 'Platonism.'
Let's check if they sound philosophical.
[quote=GI]
The production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the material activity and the material intercourse of men, the language of real life. Conceiving, thinking, the mental intercourse of men, appear at this stage as the direct efflux of their material behaviour. The same applies to mental production as expressed in the language of politics, laws, morality, religion, metaphysics, etc., of a people. Men are the producers of their conceptions, ideas, etc. – real, active men, as they are conditioned by a definite development of their productive forces and of the intercourse corresponding to these, up to its furthest forms. Consciousness can never be anything else than conscious existence, and the existence of men is their actual life-process. If in all ideology men and their circumstances appear upside-down as in a camera obscura, this phenomenon arises just as much from their historical life-process as the inversion of objects on the retina does from their physical life-process.
In direct contrast to German philosophy which descends from heaven to earth, here we ascend from earth to heaven. That is to say, we do not set out from what men say, imagine, conceive, nor from men as narrated, thought of, imagined, conceived, in order to arrive at men in the flesh. We set out from real, active men, and on the basis of their real life-process we demonstrate the development of the ideological reflexes and echoes of this life-process. The phantoms formed in the human brain are also, necessarily, sublimates of their material life-process, which is empirically verifiable and bound to material premises. Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer retain the semblance of independence. They have no history, no development; but men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with this their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking. Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life. In the first method of approach the starting-point is consciousness taken as the living individual; in the second method, which conforms to real life, it is the real living individuals themselves, and consciousness is considered solely as their consciousness.
This method of approach is not devoid of premises. It starts out from the real premises and does not abandon them for a moment. Its premises are men, not in any fantastic isolation and rigidity, but in their actual, empirically perceptible process of development under definite conditions. As soon as this active life-process is described, history ceases to be a collection of dead facts as it is with the empiricists (themselves still abstract), or an imagined activity of imagined subjects, as with the idealists.
Where speculation ends – in real life – there real, positive science begins: the representation of the practical activity, of the practical process of development of men. Empty talk about consciousness ceases, and real knowledge has to take its place. When reality is depicted, philosophy as an independent branch of knowledge loses its medium of existence.
[/quote]
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm
"Marx and Engels were philosophers"
Yes, but that's the Marxist view of the issue. I was looking for a more non-partisan perspective. IMO that's the only way to develop an objective critique of Marxism.
You might want to read a bio of Marx. I think you'd find this theory highly implausible afterward.
Here's some nice work from Engels, which gives us an idea of how M & E understood Hegel.
[quote=E]
Now, according to Hegel, reality is, however, in no way an attribute predictable of any given state of affairs, social or political, in all circumstances and at all times. On the contrary. The Roman Republic was real, but so was the Roman Empire, which superseded it. In 1789, the French monarchy had become so unreal, that is to say, so robbed of all necessity, so irrational, that it had to be destroyed by the Great Revolution, of which Hegel always speaks with the greatest enthusiasm. In this case, therefore, the monarchy was the unreal and the revolution the real. And so, in the course of development, all that was previously real becomes unreal, loses it necessity, its right of existence, its rationality. And in the place of moribund reality comes a new, viable reality — peacefully if the old has enough intelligence to go to its death without a struggle; forcibly if it resists this necessity. Thus the Hegelian proposition turns into its opposite through Hegelian dialectics itself: All that is real in the sphere of human history, becomes irrational in the process of time, is therefore irrational by its very destination, is tainted beforehand with irrationality, and everything which is rational in the minds of men is destined to become real, however much it may contradict existing apparent reality. In accordance with all the rules of the Hegelian method of thought, the proposition of the rationality of everything which is real resolves itself into the other proposition: All that exists deserves to perish.
But precisely therein lay the true significance and the revolutionary character of the Hegelian philosophy (to which, as the close of the whole movement since Kant, we must here confine ourselves), that it once and for all dealt the death blow to the finality of all product of human thought and action. Truth, the cognition of which is the business of philosophy, was in the hands of Hegel no longer an aggregate of finished dogmatic statements, which, once discovered, had merely to be learned by heart. Truth lay now in the process of cognition itself, in the long historical development of science, which mounts from lower to ever higher levels of knowledge without ever reaching, by discovering so-called absolute truth, a point at which it can proceed no further, where it would have nothing more to do than to fold its hands and gaze with wonder at the absolute truth to which it had attained. And what holds good for the realm of philosophical knowledge holds good also for that of every other kind of knowledge and also for practical action. Just as knowledge is unable to reach a complete conclusion in a perfect, ideal condition of humanity, so is history unable to do so; a perfect society, a perfect “state”, are things which can only exist in imagination. On the contrary, all successive historical systems are only transitory stages in the endless course of development of human society from the lower to the higher. Each stage is necessary, and therefore justified for the time and conditions to which it owes its origin. But in the face of new, higher conditions which gradually develop in its own womb, it loses vitality and justification. It must give way to a higher stage which will also in its turn decay and perish. Just as the bourgeoisie by large-scale industry, competition, and the world market dissolves in practice all stable time-honored institutions, so this dialectical philosophy dissolves all conceptions of final, absolute truth and of absolute states of humanity corresponding to it. For it [dialectical philosophy], nothing is final, absolute, sacred. It reveals the transitory character of everything and in everything; nothing can endure before it except the uninterrupted process of becoming and of passing away, of endless ascendancy from the lower to the higher. And dialectical philosophy itself is nothing more than the mere reflection of this process in the thinking brain. It has, of course, also a conservative side; it recognizes that definite stages of knowledge and society are justified for their time and circumstances; but only so far. The conservatism of this mode of outlook is relative; its revolutionary character is absolute — the only absolute dialectical philosophy admits.
[/quote]
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/ch01.htm
I'm not a partisan, or only inasmuch as I think Marx is worth reading, just like Plato.
I don't think reading pro-Marx literature can solve the problem. On the contrary, critical works must be considered. Engels was the head of the pro-Marx propaganda campaign started during Marx's lifetime and carried on after his death. He is definitely not a reliable source. It's just like Communist Party propaganda in communist states.
Strange. I'm quoting Marx and Engels, the actual texts. Is that pro-Marx literature? Is The Symposium pro-Plato literature?
It seems to me that you are basically suggesting doing exactly what you are accusing Marx & Engels of doing.
[quote=GI]
The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch. For instance, in an age and in a country where royal power, aristocracy, and bourgeoisie are contending for mastery and where, therefore, mastery is shared, the doctrine of the separation of powers proves to be the dominant idea and is expressed as an “eternal law.”
The division of labour, which we already saw above as one of the chief forces of history up till now, manifests itself also in the ruling class as the division of mental and material labour, so that inside this class one part appears as the thinkers of the class (its active, conceptive ideologists, who make the perfecting of the illusion of the class about itself their chief source of livelihood), while the others’ attitude to these ideas and illusions is more passive and receptive, because they are in reality the active members of this class and have less time to make up illusions and ideas about themselves. Within this class this cleavage can even develop into a certain opposition and hostility between the two parts, which, however, in the case of a practical collision, in which the class itself is endangered, automatically comes to nothing, in which case there also vanishes the semblance that the ruling ideas were not the ideas of the ruling class and had a power distinct from the power of this class.
[/quote]
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01b.htm
Advice: read "Capital", realize how clownish and unthought-out your idea is and then come back and write an at least half-serious critique.
Here's a tip.
What you are arguing is a largely ad hominem and amounts to simple smearing. You need to examine his arguments and criticise them. Not him. Saying he was a self-aggrandizing douche-canoe, or that few at the time liked his books is irrelevant and as far as criticism goes, a rookie mistake or poor form.
There are famous artists/writers/thinkers who were disliked or didn't sell their works, but were later considered great - Van Gogh, for instance. Wagner was a piece of shit, but many consider his music to be inspired. Me included. Arthur Schopenhauer's philosophy was largely ignored during his lifetime but he became a great figure in world philosophy, etc, etc...
Or are we not allowed any criticism of Marx and Marxism?
The descriptions of Marx are from serious historians like Isaiah Berlin and others. The authors don't necessarily agree with them on all points, but they do mention them as part of a balanced presentation of historical fact. This cannot in any way be construed as ad hominem. Statements regarding a person's character are admissible in a court of law.
Anyway, that was not even my main argument. My main argument is that Marxism does not sound like a philosophy. Even Wikipedia doesn't call it "philosophy".
I think it would have been much better had you focused on a particular concept to examine and avoided obvious polemical intent. You could have either talked about philosopher kings or some element in Marx's philosophy. Mixing both just looks like crude right-wing propaganda. (You don't want to sound like Tucker Talk.)
Oh, and here's some links to two articles critiquing Kant to make this seem substantive.
[quote=Wiki]
Karl Heinrich Marx (German: [ma?ks]; 5 May 1818 – 14 March 1883[13]) was a German philosopher, economist, historian, sociologist, political theorist, journalist and socialist revolutionary.
[/quote]
And I VERY CLEARLY referred to particular Marxist concepts.
SEE the links provided to Adamiack's "The Withering Away of the State" and Bender's "The Ambiguities of Marx's concepts".[/b]
Marx may have been a philosophical thinker but that doesn't make Marxism a philosophy. These are two totally different issues.
It sounds like you're upset because I dared criticize Marxism. But you failed to address my points on Marxian concepts like "withering away of the state" which I find rather strange from someone who is so knowledgeable about Marx's teachings.
It's unfortunate that you misunderstand the situation this way. I'm not especially invested in Marx. He's one of many thinkers who brought philosophy down to earth. I am personally far more attached to Feuerbach, who created a strange brew of mysticism and materialism in his first book, Thoughts on Death and Immortality and wrote the classic Essence of Christianity afterward. I'm interested in how Hegel (who is fascinating but problematic) was brought down to earth (this process continues, consider The Spirit of Trust.)
Quoting Apollodorus
I don't claim to be especially knowledgeable. I've just read a few hundred pages and found lots of good stuff in them. For instance, The German Ideology can be hilarious. What I think about most in Marx is the attention paid to the economic aspect of life and its relation to 'ideal' realms like religion and philosophy.
Well, you're accusing me of not referring to particular Marxist concepts when I obviously did and do refer to them.
When you're stressing Marx's attention to economics and its relation to philosophy you probably mean economics as a prop to a philosophy that wouldn't otherwise stand on its own feet.
And you still haven't addressed Marxist concepts like "withering away of the state" presumably because you know that they don't stand up to scrutiny.
Another example of why political psychology is bad.
That was just a suggestion and it wasn't even mine. It isn't my fault that people don't read critiques of Marx or his theories by reputable historians and other scholars.
The main question to be answered in the first place is whether Marxism is a philosophy. The evidence suggests that it isn't in which case we need to establish what exactly it is - or what it was at the time of Marx and what he really believed was its purpose.
I saw that other thread. I personally don't put much energy concerning how liberals abuse folk psychology. I'm more interested in understanding all the small components of how the world works.
For clarities sake you need to do a better job distinguishing what is your suggestion or position, and when you are citing someone else's opinion (and maybe source it), since this has happened several times with you. I've read critiques of Marxism along with a notable biography of Marx and while some of those personal traits listed are more or less true of Marx the idea that Marxism was constructed by Marx for personal gain and power is inexcusably idiotic. I'm quite curious what braindead oaf actually posed this.
Regarding what Marxism is; the attempt to pin it to a specific disciplinary such as philosophy, economics, is pretty pointless, uninteresting, and yet this question continues to pop up on this forum, perhaps unsurprisingly by people who have read much of Marx, if at all.
To my mind, Marx formulated a methodology, viz. Historical Materialism (which you can read more about in the chapter on Feuerbach in The German Ideology), and Marxism is Historical Materialism through the lens of Marx, or in other words, an interpretation of Historical Materialism through Marx via his writing, where one can glean specific areas of philosophic and socio-economic interest, moral positions, and how some of these interests and positions etc. changed and developed over his life time.
Yeah, to be clear, I'm referring specifically to trait-based, psychological, innate, yadda yadda yadda, means through which to interpret, predict, understand, etc. politics, individually speaking or by cultural phenomenon. Perhaps I need to find a fairly universal term to avoid misunderstanding. As much as I agree that such work ultimately amounts to "armchair guessing", unfortunately it's a considered as legitimate as conservative economics by the public, with plenty of book deals, lucrative grants and speaking opportunities to Harvard graduates.
Well, critics of Marx don't always phrase it that way. I only did it to clarify my own position. But historians do point out for example that Marx used the organizations he joined for his own agendas. See the works on Karl Marx by Isaiah Berlin, Francis Wheen, and others.
And you can see from his private letters (available online) that he was using people for financial purposes.
Marx may have formulated a methodology but it doesn't amount to philosophy. Even pro-Marxist sources like Wikipedia don't call Marxism "philosophy". The Wikipedia article says Marxism "is a method of socioeconomic analysis that uses a materialist interpretation of historical development".
If it isn't a philosophy, then what is it and what was its true purpose?
Philosopher and historian of ideas Leszek Ko?akowski has pointed out that "Marx's theory is incomplete or ambiguous" in many places, with some statements being "philosophical dogmas that cannot be proved by scientific means" and others just "nonsense".
The same or similar arguments are made by Adamiack, Bender, R G Wesson, David W Lovell, Walicki and many others. It isn't "me". I was just trying to collate as many points of what looks to me as valid critique and condense them into a few brief observations.
If it turns out I'm wrong, so be it. I don't care. But we haven't got there yet.
As I said before, I'm not a professional writer or debater. If anyone has any suggestions how the OP could be rephrased to make it more intelligible and perhaps less "controversial" I'd be more than happy to consider it.
Meantime, here are some sources if you're interested.
Marx lived for many years on money borrowed from others – I. Berlin, Karl Marx; S. Avineri, Karl Marx: Philosophy and Revolution
As shown by his private correspondence, Marx used even his middle-class associates (Freiligrath, Lassalle, Kugelmann, Engels and others) for financial as well as political ends. - Marx, K., Letter to Engels, 10 Dec. 1859, MECW, vol. 40, p. 547
By their own admission, Marx and Engels found value in the workers’ organisations they joined only to the extent that they could control and use them for their own purposes. - Berlin p 247
Marx chose philosophy as the instrument through which to change the world according to his own ideas, declaring that the purpose of philosophy was to change the world – Marx, Theses on Feuerbach
Marx was involved in funding arms for an uprising in Belgium – Jenny Marx in Jenny Marx oder die Suche nach dem Aufrechten Gang, p 57-8; F. Wheen, Karl Marx, p. 126-7
Marx advocated a coup to overthrow the government in Germany and seize power - Kolakowski p. 437; E. Bernstein, The Preconditions of Socialism, p. 152; Marx, Address to the Central Committee of the Communist League, May 1850
During their time as journalists, Marx and Engels learned how to use veiled, ambiguous and suggestive or misleading language to evade the political press censorship of the German state.
They used the same type of language to increase the appeal of their policies among existing or prospective followers - Adamiack
Marx and Engels used concepts and theories that were ambiguous, inconsistent or just nonsense – L. Kolakowski, Main Currents of Marxism
Marx was described along the lines of “liar and intriguer” by Karl Heinzen, Bakunin and others - Berlin
According to witnesses like Gustav Techow, chief of the general staff of the Palatinate Revolutionary Army whom Marx wanted to win over to his socialist movement, Marx’s intention was to drive the aristocracy from government and seize power for himself with the help of radicalized elements of the working class – Wheen p. 240
My summary of the above (and other data): You can't possibly spend years developing a political philosophy only to leave open all the central concepts related to its aim and purpose. Marx and Engels' "political philosophy" or ideology is logically inconsistent and ambiguous because it is meant to appeal to imagination and emotion without revealing the true intentions of its authors.
Just read Marx
Masterfully understated.
I have. I can't find consistent definitions for any of the Marxist/Marxian concepts I've mentioned here and on the other thread. And it looks like nobody else can either. Believe me, I've asked university professors.
By the way, Capital is about economic theories, it doesn't say anything about the system Marx wanted to replace capitalism with. So, basically, nobody knows what Marx's revolutionary movement was trying to achieve.
In any case, it doesn't look like Marxism is a philosophy. Whatever it is, it isn't even logically consistent. Strange that it should take idiots like Kolakowski and others to notice that.
Then quote the parts you take issue with. I don't see the point in objecting to an argument nobody is arguing with except yourself. Or if there are these other people, quote them as well.
I have no idea what you are trying to say.
“Socialists from Marx and Engels onwards have always held that with the establishment of Socialism the State will disappear”
The Withering Away of the State – From Marx to Stalin, Marxists Internet Archive
Withering away of the state, Wikipedia Article
Original German text in Marx-Engels Werke (MEW), Vol. 20, p. 262:
“An die Stelle der Regierung über Personen tritt die Verwaltung von Sachen und die Leitung von Produktionsprozessen. Der Staat wird nicht »abgeschafft«, er stirbt ab.
English translation in Marx-Engels Collected Works (MECW), Vol. 23, p. 268:
“State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous and then dies out of itself: the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not "abolished", it withers away”
A state that assumes an administrative function can't "wither away"
The OP provides links to articles by historians discussing the inconsistency of concepts like "the withering away of the state". It isn't something that I've made up.
Well, the text written by Marx was addressed in your other thread, particularly by boethius.
The critics of Marx you assembled are only interested in the question of how a revolution plays out.
There is merit in struggling with what one rejects or finds interesting in his work. Your proposition that it was a rhetorical ruse at its very heart is odd. Such a point of view does not actually give one much leverage to oppose what one might object to.
If the guy was that flaky in your view, why bring him up at all?
It all began with threads like "Democracy vs Socialism" (started by others) where some comments seemed to suggest that socialism, including Marxism is some sort of panacea to all societal ills. In my view, which is supported by historians and other scholars, this is far from being the case. On the contrary, Marxism, in particular, has a lot of inconsistencies in many of its central theories and concepts.
As already stated, the question that I asked myself was "how is it possible that somebody who had a degree in philosophy, was very well-read and experienced in philosophical and political debate, developed a "political philosophy" that doesn't hold water?" Was this accident or intention? I think it is hard to argue that it was entirely accidental in view of the fact that as noted by historians like Adamiack and others, Marx and Engels sometimes deliberately used suggestive, ambiguous or misleading language that contradicts the claim that their system was "scientific".
I brought up the issue here because I wanted to find out what others think of the matter and because I thought that a philosophy forum would be more "philosophical" and less argumentative than one where people tend to discuss politics in a more partisan or biased way.
I agree that @boethius addressed one of the points I was making and I appreciate that he agreed with me. However, there are many other points which, when objectively addressed, might actually lead to the same conclusion. In which case the topic would be justified.
Here are two contradictions in Marxist thinking:
1. Capitalism supposedly adversely affects the worker's relation to work.
(A) Capitalism supposedly deprives the worker of work by alienating him from labor through technology and industrialization, reducing his labor from skilled to unskilled. (B) Capitalism is thought to make the worker work more; this work is "exploitative" because, through it, surplus value is extracted from labor as capital; the worker must work more to retain the value that was lost from the extracted surplus and because more work is needed to recoup the lower wages from being an unskilled worker. Thus the worker is both deprived of labor and labors more due to capitalism.
2. The worker is allegedly exploited in capitalism.
This alleged exploitation is a result of: (A) the worker must work more. He must work more because his wages are less than if he were in control of the means of production (E.g. a shoemaker makes more than a shoe factory worker). For the worker, the cost of living goes up. Meanwhile (B) the worker is exploited because in order for the capitalist to profit, the capitalist must "extract surplus value" from the worker; in other words, to make a profit and be competitive, the capitalist must pay the worker less for the worker's labor, so that the cost of production is less. But if capitalism causes the cost of production to be less, than "exploitation of the worker" actually lowers the cost of living. Thus the alleged exploitation of the worker both reduces and increases the cost of living for the worker.
What did Marx expect a dismissal of the spiritual world to result in, other than mass capitalism? It's the logical consequence.
In a further twist of irony, religion, for all its faults, is often the moral glue that binds vulnerable communities together. Without it, they fall apart in a negative spiral of crime and demoralization from which there is no escape.
So Marx, in addition to having the blood of tens of millions on his hands, did the poor of this world a gigantic disservice by inviting them into a cult of godless materialism - the very thing it purports to fight.
I tried to disagree with this, but it's basically true.
I think it's just about possible to argue that the popularity of Marx's philosophy might have been partly based on ressentiment—and that actions by some of his adherents were motivated by it, e.g., in the violence of revolutionary movements—but not that his philosophy is itself based on it, since ressentiment, at least in Nietzsche's use of the term, includes not only projecting blame on to the stronger party but also and obversely celebrating or affirming one's own state of weakness. This is something Marx's philosophy does not do: it seeks to abolish the conditions of weakness.
It's also a bit perverse to claim that a philosophy that problematizes that which supporters of the status quo will tell you is unproblematic is providing any kind of comfort. Unless any kind of hope for change at all is an opium, in which case it's not much of an accusation.
Sometimes I wonder if the earlier Marx went into the opium of hope later on as more revolutionary comments were made. His and Engel's theories at their core is just a form of psychohistory (The Foundation), in which they try to map out the dominos falling within the system of capitalism. But maybe Marx got fed up by people who didn't understand the theory to the point of calling for the demolish of capitalism as a revolutionary action. It's always been a point of conflict for those discussing Marx whether or not he actually called for action against capitalism or not, cherry picking his statements out of context to support either criticism or in support of his theories. Even to the point of blaming Marx for all the problems of communist nations building from his ideas. It all kind of supports the existentialist's ideas of how language shapes our reality, in which the entire being and legacy of Marx shifts depending on the way his words have been interpreted and decoded.
But I'm in the camp of looking at his theories in the form of decoding the cogs of capitalism, and I think there's no opium to be found there, only a form of scientific observation that's been lost in how to interpret language over a historical timeframe in which language have changed to give extremely different interpretative values.
And through the observation of the cogs of capitalism, I think it's very important to understand what Marx and Engel's was talking about, especially in a neoliberal era in which there's no ceiling to how much wealth billionaires can pool into their pockets.
Society is in a breaking point close to what Marx laid out; in which the divide between owners and workers is so large that we're beginning to speak of universal basic income and other strategies to mitigate the consequences of capitalism's progression.
The biggest lie or misconception that supporters of capitalism perpetuates, is that the wealthy will re-invest their wealth back into society. But in a globalized neoliberal capitalist economy, they rather pool their wealth into tax free hubs, like banks or investing in extreme architecture in places like Dubai and Qatar. The value and wealth becomes solidified monuments of gold and never trickle down to the very society that it fed from.
So what we're witnessing right now is the verification of Marx theories for what will eventually happen with capitalism. I'm not sure I want to call it late-stage capitalism because we don't know how far it will get, but we're starting to see problems rising up for the poor and low-income, and if the wealth and money doesn't start to trickle down back into society (preferably with higher tax for the wealthy since the neoliberal experiment proved to not work as people believed it would), we will eventually see a revolution, not by the will of Marx, but out of the desperation of the people, all along the line of what Marx and Engels theorized.
So I don't think there's any opium other than the trust in that society is a self-correcting organism. If one part feeds too much on the other, they will soon be devoured by the ones they put into starvation. Economy is humanity's simulation of evolution, and as such, an unbalanced eco-system will always self-correct in the end.
No one who is accused of harboring Nietzschean ressentiment believes of themselves that they are 'affirming their own state of weakness'. However, Nietzsche would argue that is exactly what Marxism does by glorifying the role of the worker while leading them to the promised yet hitherto conspicuously absent communist utopia (a century and counting, by the way).
"The meek (read: the workers) shall inherit the Earth."
Well, how's it going?
Before you read his philosophy, I suggest reading his biography and then ask yourself the poignant question whether this is the sort of "man" you would take economic advice from.
'Penniless bum', 'deadbeat husband', 'petty thug' and 'shameless antisemite' are some of the nicer terms I could use to describe his person.
That might sound like an ad hominem to some, but it's not even half of it. It's like these terms were especially invented for this absolute hog of a man.
You're reciting a dogma, nothing else. You think you're fighting a battle, nothing more. Your comments are thoughtless, and what thoughts you profess to have are not even your own (Scruton, for example). You're seething with hatred, but who is it you really hate? It's not clear to me.
If you could could calm down, wipe the foam from around your mouth, and settle in for a good conversation, then I could put my case in favour of Marx's philosophy and even of the way he lived his life.
I don't hate anyone, by the way. I'm just not one for mincing words. Marx was a lowlife who made his wife and children suffer in destitute poverty to fund his smoking, alcohol and drug habits. He did this off other people's money, of which he received copious amounts.
A cartoonist couldn't come up with a better caricature of a useless bum.
The only interesting question about this man and his "philosophy" is what lapse of sanity had people taking him or it seriously.
:clap:
You'd believe anything you read, now wouldn't you? Caricatures come in all forms.
Quoting Tzeentch
The man is dead and after 100 years even his most bitter critics speak of him. Tell me. Will your closest friends even speak of you, given that time?
The man may have been mistaken. Terribly so. But what drives an otherwise intelligent mind to seek the low route of ad hominism? Could it be, perhaps, you're afraid of a dead man and his ideas? No shame. It is Halloween, after all. :smile:
Well, it is attested to by Marx himself in writing, and you seem to ascribe some special value to his written words.
If his were my legacy, I'd rather not be remembered at all.
Is it not a case of judge the message and not the man? The same was said about Heidegger being an unapologetic/unrepentant Nazi but his philosophy still stands on its own and from what I recall had little flavour of his political beliefs.
If there is a master craftsman woodworker and you appreciate his work and later find out he is a Nazi does that make you suddenly hate his handiwork? Maybe the answer is yes, but should you, rationally?
Another example is quite a bit a bit of technology was taken from the Germans at the end of WW2. Does make the science any less valid? Methadone is one example which has enjoyed much use in the west since.
Aside: I only just noticed the OP was from 4 years ago. I wonder if the original poster has long left to pastures new, having cultivated their right wing ideals in the interim, to places like Q-anon forums. :)
Nonetheless it seems @Tzeentch has taken up the torch.
A fair question, to which I would answer "no" - the man and the message are both important, especially when it comes to philosophy.
People may say and write many things, proclaiming to uphold lofty ideals, etc. - that all costs very little.
The resulting actions are what make the man, to serve as the living proof that one is able to live according to their professed ideals, and that doing so will result in an actual ideal.
Now, we are all human and I don't expect philosophers to be infallible, but Marx is truly an extraordinary specimen.
If you don't know what I'm talking about, I suggest you read his biography.
I shall quote Cuz D'Amato, Mike Tyson's formative trainer: "I don't care what Mike Tyson does outside the ring."
That was tongue in cheek.
Yes I see your angle is the Ghandi lead by example approach. Of course ideally the man would also be the perfect reflection of his values, but that doesn't make their work's worthless if they aren't. A rational person should analyze the merits of the body of work in its own right to see if it offers value.
What you are proposing goes against the justice system's tenets of not allowing outside elements taint a person's right to a fair trial. From what I understand they won't allow evidence which does not pertain to the particular case as it might taint the jury's opinion unduly from the case at hand. I don't know all the legalese terms for it but that is the general gist.
Marx was a very successful philosopher.
Of course the whole ideological-economic Marxist experiment hasn't worked the many times people have tried it and simply won't work. The present Chinese leadership can call themselves Marxists, but they are a long way from classical Marxism. Even Xi Jingping himself has said, that they (the CCP) don't take literally their Marxism. Some here defend Marxism, see some positive aspects in it. Nobody has defended Marxism-Leninism (at least I haven't noticed this from the years I have been on this forum).
Yet the same can be said about Plato´s ideal society: it's dead on arrival if real human societies would be started to be governed and arranged with his ideas. Separating people into castes would be the first reason that this would become a hideous system, no matter how "well" this selection would be done. Likely those in power, the so-called "philosopher-kings" would simply become a ruling class, which, suprise suprise, would find the new generation of philosopher-kings from their children. So many examples of this in history. I doubt you will argue against Plato being a philosopher.
Simply put it, philosophers come up with terrible ideas when creating their ideal society. If those ideas are literally implemented especially with ideological fervor, the outcome is usually a dismal failure. And anyway, anybody trying to create "The New Jerusalem" or whatever will likely just create misery and ruin. Thriving societies usually just emerge... and then a philosopher has to explain just why was the society so successful.
Fair. I don't care what Marx did outside of being a bum either.
You really don't like this guy, do you. Why can't you focus on his work, at least.
He was obviously persecuted by the State for his beliefs when alive. A State that was not an open, free society and therefore has no problem ruining a citizen's life, if not outright taking it. The stress of being a free thinker in a closed, backward society is enough to cause anyone to turn to a bottle or pipe.
I'm just not buying the narrative you're selling, sorry. That is, this simplistic version of "he was just like that for no other reason than to have been so, therefore, he and his works are to be despised." Not a very good argument, even if true.
And I'm generally in favor of capitalism. Regardless of one's belief or preference in economics, that doesn't seem any valid reason to speak ill of the dead, particularly a person not you nor anyone whom you know has ever even met. Just my 2 cents.
I'm giving the "short story" obviously, but what I suggested was that people read his biography for themselves.
If it's true, it's a good argument. It might not be a pretty argument, but alas sometimes the facts aren't pretty.
You wouldn't take health advice from an obese, alcoholic, chainsmoker either.
Quoting Outlander
Marx cannot blame the state for his utter lack of moral character. When I call him a "bum", I'm putting it extremely lightly.
Let me stipulate again, he let his family whither away in abject poverty (even by standards of the time) - resulting in the death of most of his children and perpetual ill health of his wife - while he himself was being showered in money by benefactors like Engels, most of which he squandered on cigarettes, drink and opium.
Of all of Marx's children, the only one to lead a long life was a son he illegitimately conceived with his maid (because of course he would) and was not raised in his household.
I pity his wife.
History is written by the winners. And winners are murderers. Immoral people. Your trust is therefore based on immorality, which does not preclude the possibility of, oh I don't know, lies. :smile:
Say it is true. Why would someone, brilliant believe in someone who was a bum? Was he a conman? Then if so, he had a great way of conducting himself that seems to elude your understanding. Or, was he a fool himself? We're only as good as the company we keep. Surely you can understand that.
I just feel there's more to this story. And your seemingly inhuman desire to ensure there isn't any, only makes it all the more intriguing. Can you not realize that?
Where I come from we call this the Streisand effect. Of course, perhaps you're well aware of this and are using this to advance a covert goal or objective. Who could say?
So, tossing aside common knowledge, we still come to the unavoidable question. Was Engels a fool? Or a psychopath who enjoyed watching a tortured man dance to the tune of a few dollars? It has to be one or the other. There's no other option for you, per the corner you've painted yourself in by way of your remarks, my friend. :smile:
Anybody who can become a central figure in Western Civilization while walking in bumhood is a freaking genius.
Quoting Outlander
This strikes me as 'nu-uh'. Always funny.
Indeed.
National socialism didn't win either. It resulted in one of the most epic and catastrophic failures of all time. Hence we don't cherish the ideology or think it's a viable alternative and put on pedestals it's ideological fathers. Actually, TPF will ban people promoting nazi ideology as it doesn't consider the views worthy of debate.
Marxism-Leninism is perhaps not such an abject failure, but it is one of the great failed experiments in history. Nobody in the West, even here on TPF, tries to promote that the Chinese miracle happened thanks fervent Marxism of the CCP. Yet that's the official Chinese line... so at least Marx does have his supporters that are in power even at the present.