Karl Marx. Was he right or will he be?

DadaKopf

Valmont wrote:

The very fact that Marxism fails to take human nature into account suggests that it's a terrible idea.

The lazy counter-argument. Tell me in no uncertain terms: what is 'human nature'? Because whatever you come up with will be flawed. I'm not sure Marxism even claims any special knowledge about 'human nature', it just says that things change according to certain ways that human beings relate to each other.

Especially considering it's supposed to provide an answer to all the horrific injustices of capitalism.

Not really, Das Kapital provided an analysis. And part of the analysis is this: in feudal times, God owned everything but gave special people (kings, lords, vassals, satraps) dominion over their lands and people. Everyone else owned nothing, they just had permission to use it provided they fulfilled their obligations in the social order.

This system was replaced with capitalism, based on the principles of private property and profit. It fundamentally changed how people relate to each other and, consequently, how power is distributed among people.

As Marxian theorists observed, it's a no-brainer to think that when another paradigm shift occurs, people will conceive 'human nature' differently. But the outcome depends totally on what people actually collectively do during this shift.

In feudal times, things were about 'grace'; in capitalist times, it's about 'greed'; when the earthquake comes, it'll be about something else. It's clear that the nature of property ownership will change, and perhaps it will be common ownership (as has been the case across the world. Or maybe something else. How we conceive of 'human nature' is bound up in this complex process. Whatever 'human nature' is.

mumhaabu

javaboy wrote: »

Rubbish: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Calculating_the_number_of_victims

Firstly that website has absolutely no credibility at all and is occupied by leftwing hippies on the dole who are constantly editing posts to suit their opinions. Citing Wikipedia in a college essay will see the lecturers laughing at you now. An edit to the contrary on those articles will see you IP banned off Wikipedia.

Stalin, Lenin and Communism in Russia and China have directly been the cause of over 100million deaths the vast majority of which occured within Russian Europe to Caucasian Russian people, plus the millions dead in China also. Communism makes Nazism and Facism look tame in comparison. The Bolsheviks took the peasants grain and tens of millions starved to death, little was ever heard of this as it was deep within soviet controlled territory. Starvation, Murder and Concentration camps were the order of the day and vast areas of Russia which are now empty were once thriving areas.

The real and sad shame are the victims are mainly forgotten and every effort is made by todays neo-communists to hide this mass murder forever.

javaboy

mumhaabu wrote: »

Firstly that website has absolutely no credibility at all and is occupied by leftwing hippies on the dole who are constantly editing posts to suit their opinions. Citing Wikipedia in a college essay will see the lecturers laughing at you now. An edit to the contrary on those articles will see you IP banned off Wikipedia.

You're missing the point. You said wikipedia conveniently covers up the deaths yet the wikipedia article on Stalin clearly has a section on the debate about the number of deaths. Does that not contradict what you were saying about it covering it up? Some of the numbers talked about are multiples of the accepted toll in the Nazi holocaust. Whoever's in charge of that part of the conspiracy won't be getting their Christmas bonus this year. :rolleyes:

And there's no need to tell me about Wikipedia's unreliability. I know quite well how it works and what kind of a source it is.

Ostrom

DadaKopf wrote: »

The lazy counter-argument. Tell me in no uncertain terms: what is 'human nature'? Because whatever you come up with will be flawed. I'm not sure Marxism even claims any special knowledge about 'human nature', it just says that things change according to certain ways that human beings relate to each other.


Not really, Das Kapital provided an analysis. And part of the analysis is this: in feudal times, God owned everything but gave special people (kings, lords, vassals, satraps) dominion over their lands and people. Everyone else owned nothing, they just had permission to use it provided they fulfilled their obligations in the social order.

This system was replaced with capitalism, based on the principles of private property and profit. It fundamentally changed how people relate to each other and, consequently, how power is distributed among people.

As Marxian theorists observed, it's a no-brainer to think that when another paradigm shift occurs, people will conceive 'human nature' differently. But the outcome depends totally on what people actually collectively do during this shift.

In feudal times, things were about 'grace'; in capitalist times, it's about 'greed'; when the earthquake comes, it'll be about something else. It's clear that the nature of property ownership will change, and perhaps it will be common ownership (as has been the case across the world. Or maybe something else. How we conceive of 'human nature' is bound up in this complex process. Whatever 'human nature' is.

Thank you

It is really tiring to see every argument over Marxism falsely attribute right/wrong, or later applications of revised theory to Marx's work

Or just not bothering to read and assuming its as simple as a roadmap to communism

Valmont

efla wrote: »

Thank you

It is really tiring to see every argument over Marxism falsely attribute right/wrong, or later applications of revised theory to Marx's work

Or just not bothering to read and assuming its as simple as a roadmap to communism

What is it exactly? Please don't shroud your answer by telling us what it isn't. I respect that you obviously know more than me about the subject but I'm not convinced. If it isn't a roadmap to communism, what is it a road map to? Does it have any practical applications? I take issue with the application of Marxist ideals not the theory as I'm no expert on the subject.

Regarding human nature, I can't tell you in no uncertain terms what it is but a previous post claimed that Marxism was a 'great idea ruined by human nature' and I simply pointed out it is not so great if it was ruined by humans being just being themselves. Kind of fails at the first hurdle don't you think?

Black Swan

Daithi McGee wrote: »

Is Karl Marx right in his thinking?

Marx was of historical importance and a useful starting point for debate, but not relevant in today's rapidly changing world. For example, his 2-class paradigm was overly simplistic, suffered from the limitations associated with being a dichotomy, ignored the very complex and diverse aspects of social stratification, and did not anticipate future investment and retirement plan equity (and bonds) ownership by his "workers."

Oh oh, this OP is on AH and not the philosophy forum... B!ue tosses java cup in trash and reaches for a tall cool beer...

Marx? Wasn't he one of the old Marx Brothers? An old B&W film ghrinn with cigar?

JDLK

Liberal policies are more left wing (social democratic), conservative policies are more right wing (nationalist/free market). Marxism is the exact opposite of nationalist politics because instead of believing in free markets he believed that the economy should be controlled by the governement.

Both have problems with corruption, marxism is suseptible to corruption of power (rent seeking) - and conservatism is suseptable to corruption of money- unregulated free trade.

Conservative policies of market deregulation have lead to the current finacial problmes but Liberal policies have also led to crises such as the "stagflation" of the 1970's

Neither is perfect and economist have recognised that the ultimate corruption of one heralds the the era of the other- this was proved by the downfall of neo-conservatism in America amid the sub prime scandals and the election of liberal Obama. At the end of each we usually get the the old slogans of "capitalism has failed Marx was right" or "socialism has destroyed individual freedom"- both are kind of right.

We need to work more on globalisation under a Keyensian framework

DadaKopf

Blue_Lagoon wrote:

Marx was of historical importance and a useful starting point for debate, but not relevant in today's rapidly changing world. For example, his 2-class paradigm was overly simplistic, suffered from the limitations associated with being a dichotomy, ignored the very complex and diverse aspects of social stratification, and did not anticipate future investment and retirement plan equity (and bonds) ownership by his "workers."

I agree, it was too simplistic, and was interpreted in ways that led to many deaths. But I still think capitalism creates classes (as feudalism did). But as capitalism became more complex, so too did social stratification, and so the theory had to meet those demands. And they have. See, for example, the theories of French sociologist Pierre Bordieu. So, again, holding a whole tradition of thought accountable to a 100-year-old book when, clearly, things have changed and theory has reacted to that change is unfair. It's like holding science accountable to the ancient alchemists.

Valmont wrote:

Please don't shroud your answer by telling us what it isn't. I respect that you obviously know more than me about the subject but I'm not convinced. If it isn't a roadmap to communism, what is it a road map to? Does it have any practical applications? I take issue with the application of Marxist ideals not the theory as I'm no expert on the subject.

'Marxism', as it's called, is such a massive and complex collection of ideas that it defies quick summation. In fact, the Marxian tradition tries to avoid oversimplification because, duh, the world is a very complex place. It's very difficult to correct people's misunderstandings of what it's about.

And here you make a critical mistake. The division of theory and practice. You say 'in theory' it's good, but 'in practice' it's terrible. Marxian thought places front and centre the interrelations between theory and practice: what we think affects what we do, and what we do affects what we think. The best social theory is only as good as its ability to reflect social reality. The Marxian tradition accepts that knowledge, for example, is not always objective, and therefore, understandings and explanations are skewed by human interests and social power.

So, to go back to the Russian Revolution and the failure of actual-existing 'soviet communism', either the theory was wrong, or the implementation was wrong, or both. Clearly. So energy was put into undersanding why. When the theory said the conditions were right for Italy to go communist in the 1930s but it didn't happen, Antonio Gramsci developed new theories within the Marxist tradition (hegemony) to explain why, instead, Mussolini rose to power. This is always happening within Marxian thought.

The same happens within 'mainstream' social sciences, like economics, but economists don't like to admit that their theories don't work. And their apolitical standpoint is itself political. Clearly, many of the wonderful theories that caught on in the 1980s have failed - we are in crisis.

Interestingly, the Marxian analysis of capitalism is just that: its tendency is to move from crisis to crisis following familiar patterns: investment and growth phase, followed by overproduction and overaccumulation which is unsustainable, then the bubble bursts, there's a massive crisis which gives employers the power to reduce wages and living standards to boost profits. Then a new structure emerges, and the cycle starts all over again.

And, finally, for the record, the tone of Das Kapital is very convivial in relation to capitalism. Marx greatly admired Adam Smith and capitalism - he thought it was a fascinating system where things happened so quickly and he recognises how dynamic it was - how quickly capitalist markets could adapt. But, as the current crisis reveals, it has a dark side which causes untold suffering to a great many people on the planet. And so it is a critically important alternative analytical framework and political standpoint with which to understand and prevent such suffering.

Riddle101

mumhaabu wrote: »

Karl Marx, was a utopian visionary, this however will never occur and it cannot be allowed to. Human genetics and the instincts of thousands of years of evolution and civilisation (in Europe) will not allow it to occur. Survival of the fittest rules and this is what has led Europe to becoming world masters. Europe literally created the world and this was based not on communism but on monarchist capitalism.

Communism became prominent in 1917 when less than 100 revolutionaries took over the the Russian Tsardom. Using ruthless leadership and mass brainwashing (propaganda - think obamamania on steroids) through the state controlled media a small group of individuals took control of Russia and not only did it not help Russia it ruined it. 100million people died as a result of Karl Marx's theories and the brutal way they were carried out by Vladimir Lenin and Josef Stalin. As a Russian once remarked to me, at least Adolf Hitler loved his people and wiped out Jews and outsiders, the Bolsheviks massacared their own. However liberal revisionism, the leftwing media and left wing sites such as Wikipedia convienently cover up this holocaust which makes the 6 million jews killed by Hitler and the Rwandan massacre pale in comparision.

The most important thing in this Recession is to keep a steady head and most importantly to keep left wing socialists, Trade Unions, Political Correctness and Liberalism well and truly under control. Recent moves against private gun ownership worries me as it the beginning of the move to all out Authoitarianism thoughout history has been marked by the disarming of the private Millitia. The USA is perhaps the country where liberty is most sacrasant as it's population is armed to the teeth and will rebel against the federal government if they push the liberal agenda too far.

That's the thing though, the Jews were his people. It may have not been what he wanted but as far as he's concerned if they lived in Germany they were German. He also had many members of the Nazi party executed as well, people who were his own followers, as well as all those Witch Hunts carried out by the SA and SS. Hitler was no better then the Russians

PrivateEye

The most important thing in this Recession is to keep a steady head and most importantly to keep left wing socialists, Trade Unions, Political Correctness and Liberalism well and truly under control.

Keep the unions down during the recession?

We need stronger unions now more than ever! The workers in Waterford are showing the way to make weak unions and the government sit up and pay attention. I work (there goes the jobless lefty steretype ) and if the government expect me to stop seeking better conditions/pay whatever else for myself as a worker because Fitzpatrick&Friends had a bit of a 'whoopsies' they can forget it. Workers didn't make this recession, if we're the ones losing jobs we've a right to fight back- the unions should be our way of doing this. Sadly in this country, they couldn't be weaker.

The most important thing in this recession is that working people and other people affected by cuts (students for one) stand together and aren't taken out by 'divide and conquer' techniques.

----


As for the bolsheviks 'killing their own', the first people they went after were socialists Anarchists were prime targets for Lenin and his Red Army. To imply that 'Russia was a hundred blokes going a bit mad so socialisms never worked' is to forget the mass-movements that made the Spanish Revolution a reality in the 1930s. That was communism in its truest form. When you need to build a brick wall around your 'commune' so people don't escape, thats not socialism- its state imposed capitalism.


And as for the liberal agenda, as a leftist....I hate the 'liberal agenda' more than most. Most people on the left (Who tend to be workers striving for better conditions) couldn't be further from wooly-liberals. We'll be the ones still pushing the government during the recession, we're easy to spot.

synd

PrivateEye wrote: »

Keep the unions down during the recession?

We need stronger unions now more than ever! The workers in Waterford are showing the way to make weak unions and the government sit up and pay attention. I work (there goes the jobless lefty steretype ) and if the government expect me to stop seeking better conditions/pay whatever else for myself as a worker because Fitzpatrick&Friends had a bit of a 'whoopsies' they can forget it. Workers didn't make this recession, if we're the ones losing jobs we've a right to fight back- the unions should be our way of doing this. Sadly in this country, they couldn't be weaker.

The most important thing in this recession is that working people and other people affected by cuts (students for one) stand together and aren't taken out by 'divide and conquer' techniques.

----


As for the bolsheviks 'killing their own', the first people they went after were socialists Anarchists were prime targets for Lenin and his Red Army. To imply that 'Russia was a hundred blokes going a bit mad so socialisms never worked' is to forget the mass-movements that made the Spanish Revolution a reality in the 1930s. That was communism in its truest form. When you need to build a brick wall around your 'commune' so people don't escape, thats not socialism- its state imposed capitalism.


And as for the liberal agenda, as a leftist....I hate the 'liberal agenda' more than most. Most people on the left (Who tend to be workers striving for better conditions) couldn't be further from wooly-liberals. We'll be the ones still pushing the government during the recession, we're easy to spot.

Completey agree - the gov will use the current recession to divide society, you can already see it with there attacks on the public sector, studants ect. Remember production dosn't stop when owners of capital revolk permission of use - production only stops when labor respects the right of ownership.(Property is theft) - Proudhon.