• Ilya B Shambat
    194
    Marx was wrong on most of his central contentions. There is no such thing as a historical inevitability; people's choices have taken different parts of the world into any number of places at any number of times. The businessman is not a thief; he is someone who gets things done. And religion is not “the opium for the masses.”

    Why am I saying this? Because the world's major religions, with the exception of Buddhism, were started not by economic or political leaders but by the hoi polloi. Both Christ and Mohammad were anti-establishment radicals with no experience of economic or political power; and while Mohammad became politically powerful in his lifetime as a result of inventing Islam, Christ died on the cross.

    We see the same thing in contemporary religious movements. Christian fundamentalism was not invented on Wall Street or in DC and militates against both. The New Age movement was started by academic dropouts who militated against the academic and medical establishments. Taliban was begun by politically and economically powerless students in Pakistani madrasas. Not Luther, not Cromwell, not any number of other influential leaders of Protestant Christianity, were part of political or economic “elites” prior to starting their activities.

    Why do these religions carry the appeal that they do to the less well-off? Probably because they were started by people who were not part of “the ruling class” but became far more powerful than any of these “ruling classes.” Whether through force, miracle or persuasion, these people's beliefs then were adopted by people with economic and political power as much as they were by the hoi polloi. They were claimed by the kings and nobles; then they were claimed by the colonists and the bourgeoisie. So that when Marx saw an order of exploitation, he impugned the religions that were possessed by both the exploiters and the exploited alike and saw them as being part of the problem.

    Marxists claim to speak for the working classes, but so do Christian and Islamic fundamentalists. In America, we see a phenomenon that inverts the claims of Karl Marx. There are more Marxists among the “elites” than there are among the “masses”; and there are more conservative people among the “masses” than there are among the “elites.”

    Seeing all this, Reagan appropriated the Marxist and hippie rhetoric and took it into the opposite direction. He said that the “liberal elites,” “liberal establishment” and “big liberal government” failed to represent the values of the American people and that they were dictating to them a foreign totalitarian order that was against their beliefs. His message resonated with many people, and he became an exceptionally powerful president. He inverted the Marxian rhetoric and turned it into its opposite. The result was a very effective political force that continues to exert a vast influence – both for right and for wrong – to the present day.

    So that while Marx militated against one set of elites, Reagan conservatives militate against another set of elites. Both have followers among the so-called “masses.” And then of course there are people among these “masses” who claim that both sets of “elites” are jerks and do not represent their interests or their values. Marx claimed to champion “the working class,” but his message has carried greatest appeal in the West to the well-off students and academics. And Reagan claimed to run against the government, and now there is a huge government building near the White House with his name on it.

    Both the founder of America – Thomas Jefferson – and the founder of the Soviet Union – Vladimir Lenin – came from privilege. The first championed democracy, social mobility and opportunity for all men, and the last claimed to champion the proletariat. In both cases, we see people coming from the “elites” who took an anti-elitist stance. Both countries became global superpowers. And in both countries there was – and remains – a strong anti-elitist sentiment that can be taken, and has been taken, into any number of opposite directions. Some militate against economic “elites”; others militate against ones in media and academia. The first fail to realize and respect the role of entrepreneurship in creating prosperity. The second fail to realize and respect how much prosperity and democracy owe to science, journalism, education and the arts.

    When the Soviet Union fell, the first two things that came back were consumerism and religion. A huge McDonald's was built near the Red Square, and the vast Christ the Savior Cathedral was rebuilt with a billion dollars of private donations. Both appear to have great appeal both to the more educated and the less educated; and Marx was obviously wrong to see both as an artifact of exploitation of working people by the propertied class.

    Whereas Reagan was also wrong on a number of fronts. He was wrong about the environment; people have not created nature and cannot re-create nature, and blindly plundering it for gain that can be much better realized through smarter technologies leaves the world a worse place than one has found it. He was wrong about government being the source of oppression and corruption; there are many private religious, communitarian and economic entities that commit hideous violations against people, and unlike the government in a democracy they are unelected, unbalanced and unchecked. And his anti-academic policy has proven to be a disaster. When higher education is unaffordable and the primary educational system is weak, the bulk of the population lacks the knowledge that it needs to make informed political and personal decisions.

    Both have been vastly influential, and I expect both to remain vastly influential. Which means that it is necessary to confront the people claiming the legacy of both where they were wrong. Marx was wrong about religion, business and historical inevitability, and Reagan was wrong on education, environment and the preference of unelected private power over elected public power. Both have claimed to champion the people against the elites, and both have many followers among the elites. It remains up to us - both ones coming from elites and ones not coming from elites - to make sense of both influences and refute them where they have gone wrong.
  • Valentinus
    1.6k
    Marx did call for class struggle. But your list of 'central conditions' leaves out the most important one: The way we make things shapes how we live with each other. The process is key to understanding why certain people dominate and others do not. Marx struggled between accepting the narrative of elites versus masses and arguing that the distinction was an illusion.

    He definitely wanted to have his cake and eat it too.

    But maybe you are not interested in Marx. There were certainly many Marxists who weren't.
  • praxis
    6.5k
    Marx claimed to champion “the working class,” but his message has carried greatest appeal in the West to the well-off students and academics.Ilya B Shambat

    When higher education is unaffordable and the primary educational system is weak, the bulk of the population lacks the knowledge that it needs to make informed political and personal decisions.Ilya B Shambat

    An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free [democratic] people. — Thomas Jefferson

    Democracy is the road to socialism. — Karl Marx

    The masses or “working class” in Lenin and Stalin communism were illiterate peasants, it might be noted, so the road was well paved for totalitarianism.

    As for American populism, I’m sure the rising cost of education isn’t helping. Maybe progressive (dare I say socialist) initiatives can help with that.
  • RegularGuy
    2.6k
    That was a very good OP to read. I enjoyed it, and I found your analysis to be quite keen.
  • BC
    13.5k
    I expect both to remain vastly influentialIlya B Shambat

    With all due respect to your historical insights, Marx and Reagan aren't in the same game, the same ball park, the same league...

    The businessman is not a thief; he is someone who gets things done. And religion is not “the opium for the masses.”Ilya B Shambat

    "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions, the opiate of the masses."

    There are more Marxists among the “elites” than there are among the “masses”; and there are more conservative people among the “masses” than there are among the “elites.”Ilya B Shambat

    Sounds like bullshit to me.
  • Ilya B Shambat
    194
    "Sounds like bullshit to me."

    No. Most of the Marxists whom I have known in America came from privilege. The "working classes," as the so-called Rednecks, have been very adamantly against Marxism, exceeding in their anti-Marxist fervor even the "bourgeois." Sometimes the ideas of people differ from the reality of people. In America, it is the "rednecks" and not the "bourgeois" that are most militantly anti-Communist.
  • BC
    13.5k
    Naturally, they would be anti-marxist (not that they would know Karl from Groucho) after being drenched in anti-communist, anti-working class, anti-marxist, anti-union propaganda for the last 75 years, published in the interests NOT of the working class, but the Bourgeoisie.

    How many, how privileged, and how precisely defined were all these Marxists you allegedly know?

    When a proper Marxist explains to a member of the bourgeoisie that Marxists plan on taking all their wealth away from them (we'll haul it away by the billions, Warren, Mark, Jeff, and Bill) they become quite vigorously antimarxist. And well they should.

    Have you, like your many redneck friends, also been duped by Bourgeoisie lies?
  • praxis
    6.5k
    The businessman is not a thief; he is someone who gets things done. And religion is not “the opium for the masses.”Ilya B Shambat

    Communist economies can get things done. Remember Sputnik and Luna? The Soviets beat all capitalist countries to space and the moon. Capitalism, with its profit motive, is believed to promote efficiency and innovation. In a self-sufficient economy or one that doesn't compete with capitalist economies that may not be a problem, and there may be other ways to promote efficiency and innovation without the profit motive.

    I do think it's a mistake to under-appreciate the role that religion plays in society. We have a natural desire for meaning, I believe, and that desire centers around bonding groups together with common values and purpose. It can be a powerful opiate. Much too powerful to ignore.

    Marxists claim to speak for the working classes, but so do Christian and Islamic fundamentalists.Ilya B Shambat

    Socialism has a lot to say to a capitalist industrialist, at least if they're at all interested in stability and sustainability. I doubt any Christian or Islamic fundamentalist would claim to speak only for the working class.

    In America, we see a phenomenon that inverts the claims of Karl Marx. There are more Marxists among the “elites” than there are among the “masses”; and there are more conservative people among the “masses” than there are among the “elites.”Ilya B Shambat

    Liberals are naturally receptive to progressive or socialist ideas, if that's what you're trying to say, and conservatives may have a natural tendency to be unprogressive and share traditional values that favor sensibilities like authority, loyalty, and sanctity.

    I don't know if it makes much sense to characterize American economic classes as 'elites' vs the 'masses'. Half of Americans are middle class. In any case, statistically, conservatives tend to be wealthier, although there are many aspects to consider as to why an American economic class might be more or less liberal or conservative.
  • yupamiralda
    88
    I don't understand why people hate the elite instead of wanting to become elite.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.