Of interest only to those interested in the development of Karl Marx as a philosopher and public intellectual rather than as an economist. When I was a grad student in philosophy, I read duly read some Marx, but he was not high on my list. I never read Capital and still haven't other than some selections.
Marx is actually considered a philosopher rather than an economist. The other two of the big three were not economists either. Smith was a philosophy professor who ventured into political economy as an aspect of social and political philosophy and Keynes was trained as a mathematician.
Social and political philosophy was always an interest of mine and I eventually came to the conclusion that to approach social and political philosophy properly it was necessary to read political economy. That is how I got involved in MMT.
Looking back, I now believe that Marx and Engels are far more important in the history of thought than I had previously realized. I had considered Marx to be third tier in philosophy in terms of reading priority, but now I would move him up a notch as a comprehensive thinker, or even two if one is chiefly interested in ethics and social and political philosophy and related subjects.
I had known about Marx's interest in anthropology, for example, the work of American anthropologist Lewis Morgan. While he came to anthropology later than communism, anthropology confirmed his views on communism through historical data.
This article is about much more than anthropology, however, and I would say it is a must-read for those interested in Marx to grasp his depth and breadth of thinking, to which he had devoted his life. To read Marx primarily as an economist largely misses the point of his literary corpus. It was a more a sideline for him. He only came to realize the central important of political economy to social and political through after completing his early works. Then explaining the economic infrastructure of society became a major focus. However, this article shows how his interests and explorations were broader even late.
I think Marx went wrong in assuming philosophical and scientific materialism in that it worked against his overall goal which was humanistic, that is, establishing the philosophical basis for human freedom. But that was conditioned by his times and similar conditions persist.
This assumption lead to the further assumptions about the role of private property and the conclusion that abolishing private property would lead by itself to socialism and then communism when what is actually required as a shift in the level of collective consciousness, which is broader and deeper than the material infrastructure. Historical data seems to back this up. Arguably, I am being too hard on Marx in this regard, but that is the way many influential players came to understand him anyway. It is utopian thinking.
MR OnlineKarl Marx and the Iroquoi (Rosemont, 1989)
17 comments:
Karl Marx is probably the most important social scientist in history. But while his influence is beyond compare, Marx’s legacy is, in many ways, disastrous.
Marx pinned the ills of capitalism on private property. I think this was a mistake. The real cause of most social ills, I believe, is not private property. It’s hierarchy. Why? Because hierarchy concentrates power. And concentrated power is the despot’s best friend. Concentrated power, I believe, leads to social ills like totalitarianism, inequality, mass violence, and oppression. True, private property is intimately linked with hierarchy and power. But, as communist states demonstrated, we can have hierarchy without private property. This is Marx’s fatal error.
source: The Allure of Marxism … And Why It’s a Mistake
Never forget that genocide is a collective effort.
Private property is a legal arrangement that results in the exclusive use of an item or service. This exclusivity may be bestowed upon an individual or organization.
The applicability of a legal arrangement depends upon the rule of law.
The rule of law is predicated upon the use of force.
The use of force, or enforcement, is self-explanatory.
Anarchists are not opposed to rules, but rulers.
The most ridiculous pedestal that Marx was hoisted upon, is his designation as the "father of sociology".
Wait until Matt finds out that Marx read Plato and the rest of the Greek philosophers in Greek and not some English/German translation. What’s more, Marx was self taught in Greek.
Whatever you may think of Marx, the man had an extraordinary brain… like Einstein!
Marx also read German (native), Latin, Greek (all educated people did then), French (most educated people did), English, and later in life taught himself Russian. He also taught himself advanced math for economics. He knew or corresponded with most people in his fields, including President Lincoln. He was a heavyweight even in his own day. And it is along way from over for him.
@ Ahmed
Marx thought that the chief evil was the state, which leads to class and hierarchy. He assumed that political power was caused by the institution of private property. As result people in general were free. Ancient societies were non-state, communal and consensual rather than hierarchical. This was the basis of Marx's program, which aimed at freedom. He criticized other anarchists as naïve for their faulty analysis and principles. These were questions of the day even before Marx's time and he entered the debates already in progress.
He had to be self-taught. Sugardaddy Engles refused to get him a tutor.
Sorry, Engels.
There was an industrialist whose name I cannot recall, who asked a Marxist to show him his hands. This Marxist was an intellectual. Then the industrialist showed him his hands, which were calloused from work he had done when he was an ordinary worker.
Is that not an apt illustration for why these 'great thinkers' should be ignored?
He had to be self-taught. Sugardaddy Engles refused to get him a tutor.
Marx studied law at the University of Bonn and received a doctorate in philosophy from University of Berlin in 1841. He was not an autodictat other than through continuing learning in his field, which required languages to stay up to date and also more specialized math. (See Mathematical Manuscripts) This was not unusual at the time. This was before the explosion of knowledge (information), skills requiring advanced math, and other factors that brought about intense specialization. So now most knowledge pursuit takes place in silos with no windows. It was different in Marx's day, when people were widely read. Marx would have been comfortable debating sociology with Weber and Durkheim and discussing anthropology with Lewis Henry Morgan.
There was an industrialist whose name I cannot recall, who asked a Marxist to show him his hands. This Marxist was an intellectual. Then the industrialist showed him his hands, which were calloused from work he had done when he was an ordinary worker. Is that not an apt illustration for why these 'great thinkers' should be ignored?
That is a version of the American myth that is the basis of American anti-intellectualism. It's a version of if you can't do, teach. Even the Brits are not that stupid.
This is also a fundamental difference between Anglo-American and Continental thought. Not that American and British thinkers are stupid. It's a different way of approaching the world. Of course, the Brits and now the American assume that their way is superior because empire. That doesn't follow logically. And all empires eventually sink (look at the British empire now). But the record of thought remains potentially forever. To paraphrase Keynes, what happens now is more the result of the influence of dead thinkers than most realize.
Marx was getting his education when literacy was around 50% and the poor were living in their own excrement. He may have worked as a journalist, but he wasn't part of the working class in any meaningful sense. The academics of today maintain a similar relationship. These are two different worlds.
It's not a myth that those who can't do, end up as teachers. As if there is anything for Marxist theorists to do but deliver lectures. Most of their patron saint's work was a critique of capitalism. That was of little help to social engineers intent on replacing what developed organically.
What happens now is not planned. The transition from feudalism to capitalism wasn't planned. Did the elites in France plan to have their heads lopped off?
What have the great thinkers contributed? Elaborate conceptual frameworks to describe the world after the fact. Yet they don't live in that world. They are given a role to play, and all they do is make a living from it.
The rulers of empire are another elite who live in their own world, among their own class. They can read history, yet have no idea what they're doing. So empires falter and collapse. No one can plan the future, except in theory.
The pronouncements of intellectuals are ignored because they are irrelevant to the lives of ordinary people. The only people who listen are fellow academics (peers) and ideologues. Naturally, Marxist ideologues won't let Marx rest in peace.
Eric Hoffer, who wrote about the nature of mass movements, posited three personality types: men of words, fanatics, and practical men of action. Fault-finding intellectuals play a role in the development of mass movements. Most of these movements have resulted in tremendous loss of life. Ordinary people only get swept up in these movements at a later stage.
Marx was not just a thinker. He was also an activist, a revolutionary to be precise. He held that the purpose of philosophy was to change the world and he did not think that the ruling class would give up power without a fight.
He argued that without proper analysis anarchism would slip into utopianism and get lost. Thus, he set forth a plan taken up by Lenin and Trotsky and later by Mao, although he thought at the time that revolution would occur in already capitalist countries rather than agriculture dominant underdeveloped countries.
His analysis and plan were apparently utopian also judging by the result in now, but the game is not over yet, which is why the West is digging in for fear that China could pull it off.
Marx was getting his education when literacy was around 50% and the poor were living in their own excrement. He may have worked as a journalist, but he wasn't part of the working class in any meaningful sense.
No argument there. Marx came from a well-off family and his wife, Jenny von Westphalen, was a minor aristocrat as indicates by the "von". Very much like a lot of the activists in the 60s and 70s. John Kerry and Jane Fonda come to mind, and many of the "hippies" were from well-off families, were well-educated and had thought things through and could express themselves articulately. Generally speaking the working class was opposed to the activists and "supported the troops."
Marx was not just a thinker. He was also an activist, a revolutionary to be precise. He held that the purpose of philosophy was to change the world and he did not think that the ruling class would give up power without a fight.
The uprisings that took place when Marx was alive were violently suppressed. This includes the Paris Commune. Was peaceful change through democracy an option during that period?
He argued that without proper analysis anarchism would slip into utopianism and get lost. Thus, he set forth a plan taken up by Lenin and Trotsky and later by Mao, although he thought at the time that revolution would occur in already capitalist countries rather than agriculture dominant underdeveloped countries.
Anarchism would degenerate into acts of public violence, but anarchist theory is perhaps the best antidote to statism.
The Russian Revolution began in the cities, which had begun to industrialize. A deal was struck with the rural areas, whose farmers put an end to what remained of feudalism. Subsequently, the revolutionaries would impose their will on the rural population. Is there any reason to believe that a 21 century revolution would not take place in an urban area?
Maoism is another failed experiment, somewhat related to Marxism. Mao was a man of action who had to improvise.
Should these disasters be attributed to Marx? Or Engels?
Marx wrote relatively little about what should be done, and the Communist Manifesto was a litmus test that could identify these revolutions as failures.
Generally speaking the working class was opposed to the activists and "supported the troops."
Activists have to speak the language of the class they're appealing to. It can be faked, but the genuine article requires having experienced it.
Articulation is a skill for an individual addressing an audience.
Understanding is necessary for an audience if a mass movement is to remain under their control. All too often, the working class are used as fodder, then discarded.
Post a Comment