This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
I answer a qualified but definite 'yes'.
Most people commenting here don't really know what Marxism is. The man himself would probably have disowned all of the societies made in his name and 99% of what he wrote was to create a critical framework for understanding capitalism.
There is a lot of what Marx wrote which is very relevant today; prescient even. For example, capital's tendency to monopolise and find new markets, globalisation, the decline of the middle class etc etc were all things that Marx predicted. He was able to do so because he had what was then unprecedentedly developed theory of history and why things happen. You do not have to be a revolutionary socialist to see why this is important.
I also think that the current neo-liberal economic system is bust. Growth in the West has been sustained on private debt for decades and this can no longer work. Inequality is increasing ever more and companies are still incentivised to make the planet unlivable.
I don't care for a hammer and sickle or what these alt-right types call 'Cultural Marxism;' when they combine two words, each of which they don't understand. However, we have big problems in the world which are getting worse and Marx can help us understand why. What to do about then is a tougher question and here Marx does not provide the answer.
Most people commenting here don't really know what Marxism is. The man himself would probably have disowned all of the societies made in his name and 99% of what he wrote was to create a critical framework for understanding capitalism.
There is a lot of what Marx wrote which is very relevant today; prescient even. For example, capital's tendency to monopolise and find new markets, globalisation, the decline of the middle class etc etc were all things that Marx predicted. He was able to do so because he had what was then unprecedentedly developed theory of history and why things happen. You do not have to be a revolutionary socialist to see why this is important.
I also think that the current neo-liberal economic system is bust. Growth in the West has been sustained on private debt for decades and this can no longer work. Inequality is increasing ever more and companies are still incentivised to make the planet unlivable.
I don't care for a hammer and sickle or what these alt-right types call 'Cultural Marxism;' when they combine two words, each of which they don't understand. However, we have big problems in the world which are getting worse and Marx can help us understand why. What to do about then is a tougher question and here Marx does not provide the answer.
Cierzo · M
@Burnley123 If Marx had limited his thought to point out the dangers of capitalism, I could even agree with him. But sadly he went farther in a totally wrong way
His materialism and pretense that every human activity is purely economical only gets as closer to animals.
His thought that history has an ultimate goal, the victory of the working class, leaves no place for hunan freedom.
His theory of class struggle supports and justifies fight and bloodshed instead of cooperation, it brings nothing but destruction
His materialism and pretense that every human activity is purely economical only gets as closer to animals.
His thought that history has an ultimate goal, the victory of the working class, leaves no place for hunan freedom.
His theory of class struggle supports and justifies fight and bloodshed instead of cooperation, it brings nothing but destruction
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@Cierzo That is a very deterministic and nuance free reading of Marxism. This quote is a cliche but it is important:
[i]Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. [/i]
For me that gets to the heart of Marxist analysis. He didn't see society as purely economical but he did see it as a primary driving force. Technological change causes disruption and creates the [i]potential [/i]for revolution etc.
Most history over-estimates the importance of individual historical actors. What the King or Queen did or what the Prime Minister did is what shapes history. They have agency and effect of course, but what sets the conditions for their choices?
[quote]His theory of class struggle supports and justifies fight and bloodshed instead of cooperation, it brings nothing but destruction[/quote]
This is where I do differ from Marx and why I don't consider myself a revolutionary socialist. That does not of course rule out the action of peaceful strategy and political contest, which is based on class struggle.
The welfare states of Western Europe, including health and education came about as a class compromise but that was only possible because of the rising power of the industrial working class, which reached its zenith in the middle of the 20th century. It was arguably also only possible because the USSR provided a rival (if utterly flawed) economic model.
Apart from ideological centrists, everyone has analysis of things which are wrong, where things could be contested and where change should take place. For you Cierzo the key distinctions are nation and culture. For me it is political and economic class. Its because I see class as the main determinant of power in society and because I support equality.
[i]Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. [/i]
For me that gets to the heart of Marxist analysis. He didn't see society as purely economical but he did see it as a primary driving force. Technological change causes disruption and creates the [i]potential [/i]for revolution etc.
Most history over-estimates the importance of individual historical actors. What the King or Queen did or what the Prime Minister did is what shapes history. They have agency and effect of course, but what sets the conditions for their choices?
[quote]His theory of class struggle supports and justifies fight and bloodshed instead of cooperation, it brings nothing but destruction[/quote]
This is where I do differ from Marx and why I don't consider myself a revolutionary socialist. That does not of course rule out the action of peaceful strategy and political contest, which is based on class struggle.
The welfare states of Western Europe, including health and education came about as a class compromise but that was only possible because of the rising power of the industrial working class, which reached its zenith in the middle of the 20th century. It was arguably also only possible because the USSR provided a rival (if utterly flawed) economic model.
Apart from ideological centrists, everyone has analysis of things which are wrong, where things could be contested and where change should take place. For you Cierzo the key distinctions are nation and culture. For me it is political and economic class. Its because I see class as the main determinant of power in society and because I support equality.
Cierzo · M
@Burnley123 My view of history is close to that of Carlyle. All men are subjected to their circumstances of their time, but special ones (those Carlyle call heroes) push history further.
I think it is those individuals who move history, not society. Society just follows.
I think it is those individuals who move history, not society. Society just follows.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@Cierzo I'm not familir but I have read Wikipedia (yeah I know) to get an idea.
[i]For Carlyle, chaotic events demanded what he called 'heroes' to take control over the competing forces erupting within society. While not denying the importance of economic and practical explanations for events, he saw these forces as 'spiritual' – the hopes and aspirations of people that took the form of ideas, and were often ossified into ideologies ("formulas" or "isms", as he called them). In Carlyle's view, only dynamic individuals could master events and direct these spiritual energies effectively: as soon as ideological 'formulas' replaced heroic human action, society became dehumanised.[/i]
Does this summise his views? It seems to me that he emphasises heroic actors while not denying the economic, whereas Marx is the other way around. I've read some more and he seems interesting from a philosophical point of view with links to Nietzsche's uberman etc.
This is not my position though. I think if you look at history as a dramatic tale, then actors take central stage but to understand the process of human development then you need to emphasise economic factors over and above that. The industrial revolution in the UK is one of the single most important things in history and it is a classic example of economics shaping the theatre of politics, not the other way around. Technology plays a key factor but then technological development goes hand in hand with economic change as they both place demands on each other. If Carlyle has inventors as heroes then it casts the net pretty wide. I think politics flows downstream from economics.
There is tension and conflict between different factors that shape history. Marxism can only understand Fascism of the 1930s (and their anti heroes) by secondary analysis. You can see it as a political reaction supported by the capitalist class to deal with an existential crisis on their own terms. It also fits with Marx's understanding of ideology. I also think, contrary to Carlye, that the French Revolution can be seen a classic bourgeois revolution. Though I see revolution as more of a drawn our process than as an event, so we can say that the French Revolution was part of that process.
I guess I am just not one for heroes. Apart from Jeremy Corbyn. 😜
[i]For Carlyle, chaotic events demanded what he called 'heroes' to take control over the competing forces erupting within society. While not denying the importance of economic and practical explanations for events, he saw these forces as 'spiritual' – the hopes and aspirations of people that took the form of ideas, and were often ossified into ideologies ("formulas" or "isms", as he called them). In Carlyle's view, only dynamic individuals could master events and direct these spiritual energies effectively: as soon as ideological 'formulas' replaced heroic human action, society became dehumanised.[/i]
Does this summise his views? It seems to me that he emphasises heroic actors while not denying the economic, whereas Marx is the other way around. I've read some more and he seems interesting from a philosophical point of view with links to Nietzsche's uberman etc.
This is not my position though. I think if you look at history as a dramatic tale, then actors take central stage but to understand the process of human development then you need to emphasise economic factors over and above that. The industrial revolution in the UK is one of the single most important things in history and it is a classic example of economics shaping the theatre of politics, not the other way around. Technology plays a key factor but then technological development goes hand in hand with economic change as they both place demands on each other. If Carlyle has inventors as heroes then it casts the net pretty wide. I think politics flows downstream from economics.
There is tension and conflict between different factors that shape history. Marxism can only understand Fascism of the 1930s (and their anti heroes) by secondary analysis. You can see it as a political reaction supported by the capitalist class to deal with an existential crisis on their own terms. It also fits with Marx's understanding of ideology. I also think, contrary to Carlye, that the French Revolution can be seen a classic bourgeois revolution. Though I see revolution as more of a drawn our process than as an event, so we can say that the French Revolution was part of that process.
I guess I am just not one for heroes. Apart from Jeremy Corbyn. 😜
Cierzo · M
@Burnley123 That's a good summary of Carlyle's thought.
According to Marx, if he himself had not expressed his thoughts, someone else would have as the historical and economical circumstances of the era did not leave any choice. According to Carlyle, it would nog have happened.
You name Industrial Revolution. I have my doubts it would have happened if Adam Smith had not written his ideas about division of labours, or if politicians had not impulsed Enclosure Acts.
Carlyle did not have inventors as heroes. Inventors provide new tools, but they do not shape thought or actions the way philosopher, religious leaders or politicians do. Marx might have been a hero for Carlyle ☺
According to Marx, if he himself had not expressed his thoughts, someone else would have as the historical and economical circumstances of the era did not leave any choice. According to Carlyle, it would nog have happened.
You name Industrial Revolution. I have my doubts it would have happened if Adam Smith had not written his ideas about division of labours, or if politicians had not impulsed Enclosure Acts.
Carlyle did not have inventors as heroes. Inventors provide new tools, but they do not shape thought or actions the way philosopher, religious leaders or politicians do. Marx might have been a hero for Carlyle ☺
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@Cierzo I think the industrial revolution would have happened anyway without Adam Smith. Maybe it would have been Mark Jones (to pick another boring British name). I think It is possible that other factors decided where it was going to happen first or when. For examples, Weber wrote about the Protestant work ethic being central to the UK industrialising first. The agricultural revolution in the UK also played a factor. Add to the fact that were an island in a world where travelling was tough, it meant that technology and good ideas could give us a competitive advantage for longer before they were copied.
It would have happened eventually though and the same pattern existed the world over. Its the process of human history through economics. Historical events like the French Revolution can happen because of actors (let them eat cake) but from my view its processes which change human history more than events. The French Revolution was the signature 'bourgeois' revolution but it was part of a process and an uneven one.
I know we disagree but this is an interesting discussion.
It would have happened eventually though and the same pattern existed the world over. Its the process of human history through economics. Historical events like the French Revolution can happen because of actors (let them eat cake) but from my view its processes which change human history more than events. The French Revolution was the signature 'bourgeois' revolution but it was part of a process and an uneven one.
I know we disagree but this is an interesting discussion.
firefall · 61-69, M
@Cierzo ?? the industrial revolution was already well underway by the time Smith published Wealth of Nations, by about 40-50 years. Smith was being descriptive of what was happening, not prescriptive. And the Enclosure Acts had very little to do with starting the Industrial Revolution, either - as for politicians 'impulsed them', that's a ... .terribly dishonest description. Politicians 'impulsed' them, because the Rich Landowners insisted on it, and they either were the 'politicans' or controlled them.
Cierzo · M
@firefall Certainly not without James Watt's steam engine.
You know British history better than I do for sure, but according to what I have read, it is hard that factories would have got the army of workers they required if not for the thousands of peasants impoverished due to Enclosure Acts.
You know British history better than I do for sure, but according to what I have read, it is hard that factories would have got the army of workers they required if not for the thousands of peasants impoverished due to Enclosure Acts.
Cierzo · M
@Burnley123 It is really a very interesting discussion whether it is society as a whole or certain individuals that make the process of human history.
In my opinion if the main actor was the whole society, history would be more a continuous process, not one with leaps forwards (and backwards) happening from time to time.
I think it is a great debate that deserves a question of its own.
In my opinion if the main actor was the whole society, history would be more a continuous process, not one with leaps forwards (and backwards) happening from time to time.
I think it is a great debate that deserves a question of its own.