Pontification on Marx.
Everyone is pontificating about Karl Marx so why shouldn't I?
I will just say some things that I am sometimes gagging to say.
I will give him maybe about 6 marx out of ten.
I have read "The Communist Manifesto" and loads of summaries and commentaries on Marx and some of his early writings. He certainly made some mistakes in my humble opinion.
He himself said "One thing is for sure, I am not a Marxist".
This very clear statement never seems to have any effect on the views of those who still call themselves "Marxists".
Maybe people were misinterpreting him even in his own life time and maybe he was more open-minded than these "Marxists".
In the scheme of things this quote of Karl Marx ("One thing is for sure, I am not a Marxist") is possibly one of the most important quotes in history. If you think about it amongst other things it implies that there can't really be any such thing as "Marxism". What a relief!
We are lead to believe that Marx believed that he had answered all philosophical and human questions for all time.
If that is the case, it is surely a bit of a mistake.
"Dialectical materialism" is/was a religion with doctrines that are almost as absurd as any religion. All of Hegel is rubbish and hence what Marx took from him is nonsense.
Hegel was a right wing state worshiper and hence one of the progenitors of fascism, with his belief that the individual is subsumed by the state.
The "dialectical" method is from the Greeks but Hegel uses it in a completely inappropriate way.
Hegel's "philosophy" is so poor that it is a bit wrong to call him a philosopher really I think. Mind you you could say that about some of the others that always appear in the hit parade of the summary books. Even calling Hegel a mystic is a bit too complimentary. Maybe we could call him a shaman.
History is quite obviously NOT nothing more than class struggle. Religion and tribalism and nationalism have played as big if not a greater part in historical struggle.
As Bryan Magee points out in his "Confessions of a Philosopher" the "Labour Theory of Value" is tosh:
"...the Labour Theory of Value, which Marx made foundational to his system, was a metaphysical concept without any real content; and I also rejected from the beginning his belief in the scientific predictability of historical change."
Bryan Magee, "Confessions of a Philosopher", p.32.
Bryan Magee is a wonderful writer and philosopher.
None of that denies that cheap labour makes capitalists very rich.
Money doesn't grow on trees. It grows partly from cheap labour.
Or does it?
Money is made by governments.
For most of human history we can assume that money as we know it now simply didn't exist.
All this speculation when I don't know much about conventional economics.
If money doesn't grow on trees then where does money come from?
I mean by that where does profit or extra money come from?
I am resolving to try and work out some more economics.
The insight that economy or means of production has an effect on culture is of course useful. He maybe went too far with this.
All of this said there are many insights and points of importance in Marx. For example a society's culture is of course affected by its economic and industrial level and activity.
Why Marx anyway? Why not E.F. Schumacher and Fromm?
Philosophy is almost like a religion anyway.
There are some philosophers that are regarded as essential and the big stars of the subject.
There is a kind of pantheon. Marx is a member for example. Now why Marx?
A big factor is surely tradition, prestige and reputation; maybe as much as the undoubted quality of his thought. He also won a poll by BBC Radio 4 to chose the listeners' favourite philosopher. Why should he in particular be regarded as someone that everyone must know about, and have an opinion on? I submit that one reason is tradition.
Marx was indeed a great philosopher who changed the way people saw the world. But other thinkers do exist. Some of them incorporated his thought in their ideas. Why do we ignore them?
Why not the German genius E. F. Schumacher or Eric Fromm who are much more relevant to our situation, and who specifically concerned themselves with something closer to our reality?
It's another example of "cultural lag" - where our culture lags behind our reality.
Sounds almost Marxian.
-----------
Marx said that everything - all culture - is determined by the economy - the means of production.
That "politics is economics". There is a kind of truth in this. Man has needs that must be met.
In a certain sense, however, I think the exact opposite. Economics is politics.
The economy - the way that wealth is produced and distributed - is entirely determined by humans (apart from the location and distribution of raw materials). This is obvious.
......
Everyone is pontificating about Karl Marx so why shouldn't I?
I will just say some things that I am sometimes gagging to say.
I will give him maybe about 6 marx out of ten.
I have read "The Communist Manifesto" and loads of summaries and commentaries on Marx and some of his early writings. He certainly made some mistakes in my humble opinion.
He himself said "One thing is for sure, I am not a Marxist".
This very clear statement never seems to have any effect on the views of those who still call themselves "Marxists".
Maybe people were misinterpreting him even in his own life time and maybe he was more open-minded than these "Marxists".
In the scheme of things this quote of Karl Marx ("One thing is for sure, I am not a Marxist") is possibly one of the most important quotes in history. If you think about it amongst other things it implies that there can't really be any such thing as "Marxism". What a relief!
We are lead to believe that Marx believed that he had answered all philosophical and human questions for all time.
If that is the case, it is surely a bit of a mistake.
"Dialectical materialism" is/was a religion with doctrines that are almost as absurd as any religion. All of Hegel is rubbish and hence what Marx took from him is nonsense.
Hegel was a right wing state worshiper and hence one of the progenitors of fascism, with his belief that the individual is subsumed by the state.
The "dialectical" method is from the Greeks but Hegel uses it in a completely inappropriate way.
Hegel's "philosophy" is so poor that it is a bit wrong to call him a philosopher really I think. Mind you you could say that about some of the others that always appear in the hit parade of the summary books. Even calling Hegel a mystic is a bit too complimentary. Maybe we could call him a shaman.
History is quite obviously NOT nothing more than class struggle. Religion and tribalism and nationalism have played as big if not a greater part in historical struggle.
As Bryan Magee points out in his "Confessions of a Philosopher" the "Labour Theory of Value" is tosh:
"...the Labour Theory of Value, which Marx made foundational to his system, was a metaphysical concept without any real content; and I also rejected from the beginning his belief in the scientific predictability of historical change."
Bryan Magee, "Confessions of a Philosopher", p.32.
Bryan Magee is a wonderful writer and philosopher.
None of that denies that cheap labour makes capitalists very rich.
Money doesn't grow on trees. It grows partly from cheap labour.
Or does it?
Money is made by governments.
For most of human history we can assume that money as we know it now simply didn't exist.
All this speculation when I don't know much about conventional economics.
If money doesn't grow on trees then where does money come from?
I mean by that where does profit or extra money come from?
I am resolving to try and work out some more economics.
The insight that economy or means of production has an effect on culture is of course useful. He maybe went too far with this.
All of this said there are many insights and points of importance in Marx. For example a society's culture is of course affected by its economic and industrial level and activity.
Why Marx anyway? Why not E.F. Schumacher and Fromm?
Philosophy is almost like a religion anyway.
There are some philosophers that are regarded as essential and the big stars of the subject.
There is a kind of pantheon. Marx is a member for example. Now why Marx?
A big factor is surely tradition, prestige and reputation; maybe as much as the undoubted quality of his thought. He also won a poll by BBC Radio 4 to chose the listeners' favourite philosopher. Why should he in particular be regarded as someone that everyone must know about, and have an opinion on? I submit that one reason is tradition.
Marx was indeed a great philosopher who changed the way people saw the world. But other thinkers do exist. Some of them incorporated his thought in their ideas. Why do we ignore them?
Why not the German genius E. F. Schumacher or Eric Fromm who are much more relevant to our situation, and who specifically concerned themselves with something closer to our reality?
It's another example of "cultural lag" - where our culture lags behind our reality.
Sounds almost Marxian.
-----------
Marx said that everything - all culture - is determined by the economy - the means of production.
That "politics is economics". There is a kind of truth in this. Man has needs that must be met.
In a certain sense, however, I think the exact opposite. Economics is politics.
The economy - the way that wealth is produced and distributed - is entirely determined by humans (apart from the location and distribution of raw materials). This is obvious.
......