What is going on in Germany of 1830. It seems that the young academics get bored and annoyed by the dominance of the philosophy of Hegel. For Hegel everything was mind.
But when these young ones looked around they saw a competely different world. A world of a rapidly developing natural sciences, a world developing into an industrialized society. In fact they saw a material world.
Feuerbach, 14 years older than Marx, had substantial criticism on Hegel. In his opinion Hegel's philosophy is based on the reification of abstract predicates like "thought" which are then treated as agents.
In ordinary English this means that you treat THOUGHT as some real existing thing and regard it as a thing that does something by its own.
But instead of construing the predicate "thinking" as an agent, one transforms the equation and asserts that thinking is the activity of existing individuals. Thought comes out of being, not being out of thought.
Man is a real natural being, which has a will to live. This will is primary to knowledge, for knowledge is only a means to satisfy our striving. Feuerbach holds the rule: take the given world as it is. Religion and metaphysics have to be rejected: they only reflect strivings which are unattainable in the given world.
This is Marx' background when he was a student. Tho trained in philosophy, he moves to economics and history. And in this he creates a link between economics and philosophy. And in doing this he is one of the few philosophers who had such a noticable influence on the development of societies in the twentiest century.
In Marx idea human life is fundamentally conditioned by economic relations. All spiritual activities: science, art, religion, morality, law, politics, are the product of these relations. So you even could say that they could be used to keep these relations alive and undisrupted.
However, Marx concluded, this is only for the benifit of a certain group in society and caused by the existence of property. Society is devided in two groups, those who posses and those who dont. The other group only posses its production power.
Those who posses, controll the means of productions and pay wages to the have-nots, who produce goods, that have a value, more than what they earn. So the surplus disappears in the pockets of the owners of the means of production: the capitalists.
This will not go on for ever, due to the growing misery of the masses, who only get just enough for their production power, so they dont die. So a revolution will be inevitable and the capitalists will be swept away.
There will succeed a progressive, rational society with no wages, no money, no social classes, and, eventually, no state -- a free association of producers under their own conscious and purposive control.
Well, I guess we can be very pragmatic about Marx's social theory. History has shown that it doesnt work. In stead of a collapse of capitalism we have seen a collapse of marxism. Interesting historical fact.
So for the time being Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill seemed to have had a better theory...:-)
John Stuart Mill, 1806 - 1873................... Karl Marx. 1818 -1889. They were contemporaries. I wonder what Mill thought about the theories of Marx.
The Discussion
[13:30] Aya Beaumont: I heard there was a clear difference between early marx and late marx and his writings?
[13:31] Aya Beaumont: That later in his theory-building, he more and more assumed the need for a violent revolution.
[13:31] hope63 Shepherd: marx only fialed where jesus and mohammed failed before:)
[13:31] Herman Bergson: Yes...in the early period he still was hegelian but later moved to materialim
[13:32] Herman Bergson: marx is in fact a utopian
[13:32] Gudrun Odriscoll: I agree, Herman
[13:33] Varick Vendetta: it would seem to me that marx had a largely correct view of how things are economically and about class struggle, but I do agree his proposed system to correct it cannot be truly implemented. Even if a state controls the flow of goods, it still has to act like a capitalist system but with politicians on top instead of entrepenuers.
[13:33] Aya Beaumont: No surprise then that I always feel Marxists are religious. =)
[13:33] Mickorod Renard: I agree also
[13:33] Herman Bergson: But he is in line with the general trends of his time: a positive belief in the development of mankind towards a better world
[13:34] AristotleVon Doobie: He was either naive or sinister in his thought
[13:34] Herman Bergson: Well I would agree Aya, that marx theory turned into a religion of the state
[13:34] Aya Beaumont: Marx considered revolution inevitable in industrialized societies... funny that what he missed was social democracy.
[13:35] Herman Bergson: yes...history has proven that I think Aya
[13:35] Aya Beaumont: The workers GOT representation, and the revolution was postponed until further notice. =)
[13:35] herman Bergson smiles
[13:35] AristotleVon Doobie: Revolution is inevitable in todays capitalist society
[13:35] Gudrun Odriscoll: I do not think that he was naive. Think about the gap between poor and rich in the 19th century, aristrocrats and peasants, Tsarist Russia ...
[13:35] Mickorod Renard: humans are too individual to enforce his ideas
[13:36] Stanley Aviatik: individual? a matter for conjecture
[13:36] Aya Beaumont: Russia wasn't an industrialized country =)
[13:36] Ganymede Blackburn: Don't we do Marx's philosophy an injustice by emphasizing his predictions over his analysis? Keep in mind that Marx was never an unbiased observer with regards to class struggle. He made the predictions that might 'rally the troops' from his class, as it were, not what he thought was the most probable outcome.
[13:36] Herman Bergson: Marx wasnt naive at all....but he was an utopian...and he missed a few points because of that I guess
[13:36] Mickorod Renard: I mean in thought
[13:36] Varick Vendetta: agreed mick, thats a major reason I don't think marxism the way it was presented could exist
[13:37] Samuel Okelly: i agree gany
[13:37] Varick Vendetta: and it is also what is allowing the capitalist system to work for the time being.
[13:37] AristotleVon Doobie: Capitilism only works for the top layer, not diffenent from communisim
[13:38] Aya Beaumont: Funny thing about capitalism... everybody hates it, yet people are happier in such societies than in any other. =)
[13:38] Herman Bergson: WAIT...
[13:38] Herman Bergson: Marxism is something completely different
[13:38] Herman Bergson: it is not the ideas of Marx we are discussing now
[13:38] Samuel Okelly: i dont think we are right to assume that capitalism is working and who can say who is really "happier"?
[13:38] Mickorod Renard: capitalism does offer the carrot, like in greed
[13:38] Aya Beaumont: No.
[13:38] Varick Vendetta: imho, in the future we will have to find a balance in the two idea, a balance that I believe that in america at least, is yet to have been met. Tho it does have some socialized programs
[13:38] Herman Bergson: more so, Marx would abhore the idea of marxism
[13:39] Samuel Okelly: aya, can you provide a link for the study you refer to?
[13:39] EZ-Note Message Board: Ready to take new message. Touch board for menu.
[13:39] Gudrun Odriscoll: He would abhor the idea of marxism?
[13:39] Aya Beaumont: Heh. Always this aggressive "can you reference that????????"
[13:40] AristotleVon Doobie: sounds like 1917 here
[13:40] Aya Beaumont: Samuel, QOL studies are well used today. Look them up on the net.
[13:40] Herman Bergson: Yes..he even believed that philosophy would be rendered useless when the ideal state was reached
[13:40] Samuel Okelly: its not "agreesive" aya, its simply challenging what you have said as i do not accept the premis
[13:40] Gudrun Odriscoll: Eternal bliss?
[13:40] Aya Beaumont: Exactly what I said, Samuel. Exactly.
[13:41] Mickorod Renard: even in eternal bliss, we wouldnt be satisfied
[13:41] Gudrun Odriscoll: If we are lobotomised, perhaps
[13:41] Varick Vendetta: mick... then it wouldn't be eternal bliss
[13:42] Aya Beaumont: Even Matrix Reloaded brought that up... =)
[13:42] Mickorod Renard: yes,,,maybe eternal bliss is only short lived,,until
[13:42] Varick Vendetta: then its not eternal
[13:42] Mickorod Renard: exactly
[13:42] Herman Bergson: Well...
[13:43] Aya Beaumont: to return to Marx... his ideas have been rather influential, even if we don't stare at the predictions.
[13:43] Herman Bergson: The coming lectures will deal with a few materialist philosophers.
[13:43] Aya Beaumont: It does seem that classless societies are "more or less" possible.
[13:44] Herman Bergson: A close friend of Marx, Engels will be the next
[13:44] Gudrun Odriscoll: Aya, only if the society consists of ONE person
[13:44] Annabelle Laminsk: \o.o/ Yaaaaaaay! Friedrich
[13:44] Herman Bergson: it was he who made Marx theory into a real metaphysics
[13:44] Aya Beaumont: Not at all, Gudrun. An extreme tax pressure is enough.
[13:44] Varick Vendetta: I doubt classesness is possible, I could only see a redefinition so the classes are not spread so far apart.
[13:44] Mickorod Renard: maybe marx was aiming at just a comfortable regular society
[13:44] Herman Bergson: Marx never saw himself as a philosopher, but as a historian, sociologist
[13:45] Aya Beaumont: Exactly. there will be differences, but they don't have to be huge.
[13:45] Mickorod Renard: without greed
[13:46] Gudrun Odriscoll: extreme tax pressure, there is one common enemy, the taxman, but this does not have to do with classlessness, if I can say so
[13:46] AristotleVon Doobie: Fact is that you have 3 classes of citizens, overlords, overlord wannabes and peasants
[13:46] Herman Bergson: I suggest we'll have a look at what Engels has to say next lecture....
[13:46] Aya Beaumont: And paying for free education, free health care, free elderly care, and so on, that does have its points
[13:46] Gudrun Odriscoll: this is socialism
[13:46] Herman Bergson: And I thank you for this discussion
[13:46] Annabelle Laminsk: Thank you Herman. :D
[13:46] Mickorod Renard: thamkyou Herman
[13:46] Stanley Aviatik: If you pay - how can it be free?
[13:47] Gudrun Odriscoll: thanks, herman
[13:47] Samuel Okelly: on what did marx base his view that revolution was ineviatble (as opposed to maybe "likely" or proable)?
[13:47] Aya Beaumont: You an american, Gudrun?
[13:47] AristotleVon Doobie: Thank you Herman, seems Marx is a powder keg
[13:47] Aya Beaumont: Thanks, Herman =)
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment