the idea that Marxism was constructed by Marx for personal gain and power is inexcusably idiotic. — Maw

Masterfully understated.

Just read Marx — Maw

I have. I can't find consistent definitions for any of the Marxist/Marxian concepts I've mentioned here and on the other thread. And it looks like nobody else can either. Believe me, I've asked university professors.

By the way, Capital is about economic theories, it doesn't say anything about the system Marx wanted to replace capitalism with. So, basically, nobody knows what Marx's revolutionary movement was trying to achieve.

In any case, it doesn't look like Marxism is a philosophy. Whatever it is, it isn't even logically consistent. Strange that it should take idiots like Kolakowski and others to notice that.

I have. — Apollodorus

Then quote the parts you take issue with. I don't see the point in objecting to an argument nobody is arguing with except yourself. Or if there are these other people, quote them as well.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Then quote the parts you take issue with. — Valentinus

“Socialists from Marx and Engels onwards have always held that with the establishment of Socialism the State will disappear”

The Withering Away of the State – From Marx to Stalin, Marxists Internet Archive

Withering away of the state, Wikipedia Article

Original German text in Marx-Engels Werke (MEW), Vol. 20, p. 262:

“An die Stelle der Regierung über Personen tritt die Verwaltung von Sachen und die Leitung von Produktionsprozessen. Der Staat wird nicht »abgeschafft«, er stirbt ab.

English translation in Marx-Engels Collected Works (MECW), Vol. 23, p. 268:

“State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous and then dies out of itself: the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not "abolished", it withers away”

A state that assumes an administrative function can't "wither away"

The OP provides links to articles by historians discussing the inconsistency of concepts like "the withering away of the state". It isn't something that I've made up.

Well, the text written by Marx was addressed in your other thread, particularly by boethius.

The critics of Marx you assembled are only interested in the question of how a revolution plays out.
There is merit in struggling with what one rejects or finds interesting in his work. Your proposition that it was a rhetorical ruse at its very heart is odd. Such a point of view does not actually give one much leverage to oppose what one might object to.

If the guy was that flaky in your view, why bring him up at all?

If the guy was that flaky in your view, why bring him up at all? — Valentinus

It all began with threads like "Democracy vs Socialism" (started by others) where some comments seemed to suggest that socialism, including Marxism is some sort of panacea to all societal ills. In my view, which is supported by historians and other scholars, this is far from being the case. On the contrary, Marxism, in particular, has a lot of inconsistencies in many of its central theories and concepts.

As already stated, the question that I asked myself was "how is it possible that somebody who had a degree in philosophy, was very well-read and experienced in philosophical and political debate, developed a "political philosophy" that doesn't hold water?" Was this accident or intention? I think it is hard to argue that it was entirely accidental in view of the fact that as noted by historians like Adamiack and others, Marx and Engels sometimes deliberately used suggestive, ambiguous or misleading language that contradicts the claim that their system was "scientific".

I brought up the issue here because I wanted to find out what others think of the matter and because I thought that a philosophy forum would be more "philosophical" and less argumentative than one where people tend to discuss politics in a more partisan or biased way.

I agree that @boethius addressed one of the points I was making and I appreciate that he agreed with me. However, there are many other points which, when objectively addressed, might actually lead to the same conclusion. In which case the topic would be justified.

Marxist theory is contradictory. It fails.

Here are two contradictions in Marxist thinking:

1. Capitalism supposedly adversely affects the worker's relation to work.
(A) Capitalism supposedly deprives the worker of work by alienating him from labor through technology and industrialization, reducing his labor from skilled to unskilled. (B) Capitalism is thought to make the worker work more; this work is "exploitative" because, through it, surplus value is extracted from labor as capital; the worker must work more to retain the value that was lost from the extracted surplus and because more work is needed to recoup the lower wages from being an unskilled worker. Thus the worker is both deprived of labor and labors more due to capitalism.

2. The worker is allegedly exploited in capitalism.
This alleged exploitation is a result of: (A) the worker must work more. He must work more because his wages are less than if he were in control of the means of production (E.g. a shoemaker makes more than a shoe factory worker). For the worker, the cost of living goes up. Meanwhile (B) the worker is exploited because in order for the capitalist to profit, the capitalist must "extract surplus value" from the worker; in other words, to make a profit and be competitive, the capitalist must pay the worker less for the worker's labor, so that the cost of production is less. But if capitalism causes the cost of production to be less, than "exploitation of the worker" actually lowers the cost of living. Thus the alleged exploitation of the worker both reduces and increases the cost of living for the worker.

Marx called religion the "opium of the people," though ironically his philosophy is entirely ressentiment-based, and it is ressentiment that functions as "opium" for the weak and disenfranchsed to this day; never actually producing anything positive for them (except psychological self-gratification), and being responsible for the myriad of humanitarian catastrophes that communism is well-known for.

What did Marx expect a dismissal of the spiritual world to result in, other than mass capitalism? It's the logical consequence.

In a further twist of irony, religion, for all its faults, is often the moral glue that binds vulnerable communities together. Without it, they fall apart in a negative spiral of crime and demoralization from which there is no escape.

So Marx, in addition to having the blood of tens of millions on his hands, did the poor of this world a gigantic disservice by inviting them into a cult of godless materialism - the very thing it purports to fight.

Marx called religion the "opium of the people," though ironically his philosophy is entirely ressentiment-based, and it is ressentiment that functions as "opium" for the weak and disenfranchsed to this day; — Tzeentch

I tried to disagree with this, but it's basically true.

I think it's just about possible to argue that the popularity of Marx's philosophy might have been partly based on ressentiment—and that actions by some of his adherents were motivated by it, e.g., in the violence of revolutionary movements—but not that his philosophy is itself based on it, since ressentiment, at least in Nietzsche's use of the term, includes not only projecting blame on to the stronger party but also and obversely celebrating or affirming one's own state of weakness. This is something Marx's philosophy does not do: it seeks to abolish the conditions of weakness.

It's also a bit perverse to claim that a philosophy that problematizes that which supporters of the status quo will tell you is unproblematic is providing any kind of comfort. Unless any kind of hope for change at all is an opium, in which case it's not much of an accusation.

Unless any kind of hope for change at all is an opium, in which case it's not much of an accusation. — Jamal

Sometimes I wonder if the earlier Marx went into the opium of hope later on as more revolutionary comments were made. His and Engel's theories at their core is just a form of psychohistory (The Foundation), in which they try to map out the dominos falling within the system of capitalism. But maybe Marx got fed up by people who didn't understand the theory to the point of calling for the demolish of capitalism as a revolutionary action. It's always been a point of conflict for those discussing Marx whether or not he actually called for action against capitalism or not, cherry picking his statements out of context to support either criticism or in support of his theories. Even to the point of blaming Marx for all the problems of communist nations building from his ideas. It all kind of supports the existentialist's ideas of how language shapes our reality, in which the entire being and legacy of Marx shifts depending on the way his words have been interpreted and decoded.

But I'm in the camp of looking at his theories in the form of decoding the cogs of capitalism, and I think there's no opium to be found there, only a form of scientific observation that's been lost in how to interpret language over a historical timeframe in which language have changed to give extremely different interpretative values.

And through the observation of the cogs of capitalism, I think it's very important to understand what Marx and Engel's was talking about, especially in a neoliberal era in which there's no ceiling to how much wealth billionaires can pool into their pockets.

Society is in a breaking point close to what Marx laid out; in which the divide between owners and workers is so large that we're beginning to speak of universal basic income and other strategies to mitigate the consequences of capitalism's progression.

The biggest lie or misconception that supporters of capitalism perpetuates, is that the wealthy will re-invest their wealth back into society. But in a globalized neoliberal capitalist economy, they rather pool their wealth into tax free hubs, like banks or investing in extreme architecture in places like Dubai and Qatar. The value and wealth becomes solidified monuments of gold and never trickle down to the very society that it fed from.

So what we're witnessing right now is the verification of Marx theories for what will eventually happen with capitalism. I'm not sure I want to call it late-stage capitalism because we don't know how far it will get, but we're starting to see problems rising up for the poor and low-income, and if the wealth and money doesn't start to trickle down back into society (preferably with higher tax for the wealthy since the neoliberal experiment proved to not work as people believed it would), we will eventually see a revolution, not by the will of Marx, but out of the desperation of the people, all along the line of what Marx and Engels theorized.

So I don't think there's any opium other than the trust in that society is a self-correcting organism. If one part feeds too much on the other, they will soon be devoured by the ones they put into starvation. Economy is humanity's simulation of evolution, and as such, an unbalanced eco-system will always self-correct in the end.

I think it's just about possible to argue that the popularity of Marx's philosophy might have been partly based on ressentiment—and that actions by some of his adherents were motivated by it, e.g., in the violence of revolutionary movements—but not that his philosophy is itself based on it, since ressentiment, at least in Nietzsche's use of the term, includes not only projecting blame on to the stronger party but also and obversely celebrating or affirming one's own state of weakness. This is something Marx's philosophy does not do: it seeks to abolish the conditions of weakness. — Jamal

No one who is accused of harboring Nietzschean ressentiment believes of themselves that they are 'affirming their own state of weakness'. However, Nietzsche would argue that is exactly what Marxism does by glorifying the role of the worker while leading them to the promised yet hitherto conspicuously absent communist utopia (a century and counting, by the way).

"The meek (read: the workers) shall inherit the Earth."

Well, how's it going?

In fact, Marx affirmed his own state of weakness for his entire life.

Before you read his philosophy, I suggest reading his biography and then ask yourself the poignant question whether this is the sort of "man" you would take economic advice from.

'Penniless bum', 'deadbeat husband', 'petty thug' and 'shameless antisemite' are some of the nicer terms I could use to describe his person.

That might sound like an ad hominem to some, but it's not even half of it. It's like these terms were especially invented for this absolute hog of a man.

You're reciting a dogma, nothing else. You think you're fighting a battle, nothing more. Your comments are thoughtless, and what thoughts you profess to have are not even your own (Scruton, for example). You're seething with hatred, but who is it you really hate? It's not clear to me.

If you could could calm down, wipe the foam from around your mouth, and settle in for a good conversation, then I could put my case in favour of Marx's philosophy and even of the way he lived his life.

Thanks for the invitation, but there are no good conversations about Marx or Marxism to be had.

I don't hate anyone, by the way. I'm just not one for mincing words. Marx was a lowlife who made his wife and children suffer in destitute poverty to fund his smoking, alcohol and drug habits. He did this off other people's money, of which he received copious amounts.

A cartoonist couldn't come up with a better caricature of a useless bum.

The only interesting question about this man and his "philosophy" is what lapse of sanity had people taking him or it seriously.

:clap:

Marx was a lowlife who made his wife and children suffer in destitute poverty to fund his smoking, alcohol and drug habits. He did this off other people's money, of which he received copious amounts. — Tzeentch

You'd believe anything you read, now wouldn't you? Caricatures come in all forms.

The only interesting question about this man and his "philosophy" is what lapse of sanity had people taking him or it seriously. — Tzeentch

The man is dead and after 100 years even his most bitter critics speak of him. Tell me. Will your closest friends even speak of you, given that time?

The man may have been mistaken. Terribly so. But what drives an otherwise intelligent mind to seek the low route of ad hominism? Could it be, perhaps, you're afraid of a dead man and his ideas? No shame. It is Halloween, after all. :smile:

You'd believe anything you read, now wouldn't you? — Outlander

Well, it is attested to by Marx himself in writing, and you seem to ascribe some special value to his written words.

If his were my legacy, I'd rather not be remembered at all.

Before you read his philosophy, I suggest reading his biography and then ask yourself the poignant question whether this is the sort of "man" you would take economic advice from. — Tzeentch

Is it not a case of judge the message and not the man? The same was said about Heidegger being an unapologetic/unrepentant Nazi but his philosophy still stands on its own and from what I recall had little flavour of his political beliefs.

If there is a master craftsman woodworker and you appreciate his work and later find out he is a Nazi does that make you suddenly hate his handiwork? Maybe the answer is yes, but should you, rationally?

Another example is quite a bit a bit of technology was taken from the Germans at the end of WW2. Does make the science any less valid? Methadone is one example which has enjoyed much use in the west since.

Aside: I only just noticed the OP was from 4 years ago. I wonder if the original poster has long left to pastures new, having cultivated their right wing ideals in the interim, to places like Q-anon forums. :)

Nonetheless it seems @Tzeentch has taken up the torch.

Is it not a case of judge the message and not the man? — unimportant

A fair question, to which I would answer "no" - the man and the message are both important, especially when it comes to philosophy.

People may say and write many things, proclaiming to uphold lofty ideals, etc. - that all costs very little.

The resulting actions are what make the man, to serve as the living proof that one is able to live according to their professed ideals, and that doing so will result in an actual ideal.

Now, we are all human and I don't expect philosophers to be infallible, but Marx is truly an extraordinary specimen.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, I suggest you read his biography.

A fair question, to which I would answer "no" — Tzeentch

I shall quote Cuz D'Amato, Mike Tyson's formative trainer: "I don't care what Mike Tyson does outside the ring."

That was tongue in cheek.

Yes I see your angle is the Ghandi lead by example approach. Of course ideally the man would also be the perfect reflection of his values, but that doesn't make their work's worthless if they aren't. A rational person should analyze the merits of the body of work in its own right to see if it offers value.

What you are proposing goes against the justice system's tenets of not allowing outside elements taint a person's right to a fair trial. From what I understand they won't allow evidence which does not pertain to the particular case as it might taint the jury's opinion unduly from the case at hand. I don't know all the legalese terms for it but that is the general gist.

In any case, it doesn't look like Marxism is a philosophy. Whatever it is, it isn't even logically consistent. — Apollodorus

Marx was a very successful philosopher.

Of course the whole ideological-economic Marxist experiment hasn't worked the many times people have tried it and simply won't work. The present Chinese leadership can call themselves Marxists, but they are a long way from classical Marxism. Even Xi Jingping himself has said, that they (the CCP) don't take literally their Marxism. Some here defend Marxism, see some positive aspects in it. Nobody has defended Marxism-Leninism (at least I haven't noticed this from the years I have been on this forum).

Yet the same can be said about Plato´s ideal society: it's dead on arrival if real human societies would be started to be governed and arranged with his ideas. Separating people into castes would be the first reason that this would become a hideous system, no matter how "well" this selection would be done. Likely those in power, the so-called "philosopher-kings" would simply become a ruling class, which, suprise suprise, would find the new generation of philosopher-kings from their children. So many examples of this in history. I doubt you will argue against Plato being a philosopher.

Simply put it, philosophers come up with terrible ideas when creating their ideal society. If those ideas are literally implemented especially with ideological fervor, the outcome is usually a dismal failure. And anyway, anybody trying to create "The New Jerusalem" or whatever will likely just create misery and ruin. Thriving societies usually just emerge... and then a philosopher has to explain just why was the society so successful.

"I don't care what Mike Tyson does outside the ring." — unimportant

Fair. I don't care what Marx did outside of being a bum either.

Fair. I don't care what Marx did outside of being a bum either. — Tzeentch

You really don't like this guy, do you. Why can't you focus on his work, at least.

He was obviously persecuted by the State for his beliefs when alive. A State that was not an open, free society and therefore has no problem ruining a citizen's life, if not outright taking it. The stress of being a free thinker in a closed, backward society is enough to cause anyone to turn to a bottle or pipe.

I'm just not buying the narrative you're selling, sorry. That is, this simplistic version of "he was just like that for no other reason than to have been so, therefore, he and his works are to be despised." Not a very good argument, even if true.

And I'm generally in favor of capitalism. Regardless of one's belief or preference in economics, that doesn't seem any valid reason to speak ill of the dead, particularly a person not you nor anyone whom you know has ever even met. Just my 2 cents.

That is, this simplistic version of "he was just like that for no other reason than to have been so, therefore, he and his works are to be despised." Not a very good argument, even if true. — Outlander

I'm giving the "short story" obviously, but what I suggested was that people read his biography for themselves.

If it's true, it's a good argument. It might not be a pretty argument, but alas sometimes the facts aren't pretty.

You wouldn't take health advice from an obese, alcoholic, chainsmoker either.

He was obviously persecuted by the State for his beliefs when alive. A State that was not an open, free society and therefore has no problem ruining a citizen's life, if not outright taking it. — Outlander

Marx cannot blame the state for his utter lack of moral character. When I call him a "bum", I'm putting it extremely lightly.

Let me stipulate again, he let his family whither away in abject poverty (even by standards of the time) - resulting in the death of most of his children and perpetual ill health of his wife - while he himself was being showered in money by benefactors like Engels, most of which he squandered on cigarettes, drink and opium.

Of all of Marx's children, the only one to lead a long life was a son he illegitimately conceived with his maid (because of course he would) and was not raised in his household.

I pity his wife.

while he himself was being showered in money by benefactors like Engels — Tzeentch

History is written by the winners. And winners are murderers. Immoral people. Your trust is therefore based on immorality, which does not preclude the possibility of, oh I don't know, lies. :smile:

Say it is true. Why would someone, brilliant believe in someone who was a bum? Was he a conman? Then if so, he had a great way of conducting himself that seems to elude your understanding. Or, was he a fool himself? We're only as good as the company we keep. Surely you can understand that.

I just feel there's more to this story. And your seemingly inhuman desire to ensure there isn't any, only makes it all the more intriguing. Can you not realize that?

Where I come from we call this the Streisand effect. Of course, perhaps you're well aware of this and are using this to advance a covert goal or objective. Who could say?

Pretentious nonsense.

Pretentious nonsense. — Tzeentch

So, tossing aside common knowledge, we still come to the unavoidable question. Was Engels a fool? Or a psychopath who enjoyed watching a tortured man dance to the tune of a few dollars? It has to be one or the other. There's no other option for you, per the corner you've painted yourself in by way of your remarks, my friend. :smile:

When I call him a "bum", I'm putting it extremely lightly. — Tzeentch

Anybody who can become a central figure in Western Civilization while walking in bumhood is a freaking genius.

People discussing Marx as adults is always funny to me. It's never making much sense.

I just feel there's more to this story. And your seemingly inhuman desire to ensure there isn't any, only makes it all the more intriguing. Can you not realize that? — Outlander

This strikes me as 'nu-uh'. Always funny.