What he said would happen did not happen. — I like sushi
Dear Citizen,
A nervous complaint which has periodically affected me for the last ten years has prevented me from answering sooner your letter of 16 February. I regret that I am unable to give you a concise account for publication of the question which you did me the honour of raising. Some months ago, I already promised a text on the same subject to the St. Petersburg Committee. Still, I hope that a few lines will suffice to leave you in no doubt about the way in which my so-called theory has been misunderstood.
In analysing the genesis of capitalist production, I said:
At the heart of the capitalist system is a complete separation of ... the producer from the means of production ... the expropriation of the agricultural producer is the basis of the whole process. Only in England has it been accomplished in a radical manner. ... But all the other countries of Western Europe are following the same course. (Capital, French edition, p. 315.)
The ‘historical inevitability’ of this course is therefore expressly restricted to the countries of Western Europe. The reason for this restriction is indicated in Ch. XXXII: ‘Private property, founded upon personal labour ... is supplanted by capitalist private property, which rests on exploitation of the labour of others, on wagelabour.’ (loc. cit., p. 340).
In the Western case, then, one form of private property is transformed into another form of private property. In the case of the Russian peasants, however, their communal property would have to be transformed into private property.
The analysis in Capital therefore provides no reasons either for or against the vitality of the Russian commune. But the special study I have made of it, including a search for original source material, has convinced me that the commune is the fulcrum for social regeneration in Russia. But in order that it might function as such, the harmful influences assailing it on all sides must first be eliminated, and it must then be assured the normal conditions for spontaneous development.
I have the honour, dear Citizen, to remain
Yours sincerely,
Karl Marx — Marx 1881
The ‘historical inevitability’ of this course is therefore expressly restricted to the countries of Western Europe. — Marx 1881
And most EU countries have shrinking middle-classes as well, following years of neoliberal policies. — Benkei
We see in societies that don't have a rich history of welfare a relatively sharp decline of the middle class. The UK sees a cost of living crisis. The US has had a shrinking middle-class for over 50 years now. And most EU countries have shrinking middle-classes as well, following years of neoliberal policies. So, to be expected. Obviously, redistributive policies and progressive taxation can manage some of these consequences but they didn't exist during Marx' time, which is why he campaigned for it to address some of the inequality. — Benkei
It generally does happen. — Tarskian
It did not happen. If you cannot admit this simple truth then there is nothing to discuss. — I like sushi
Only you can shake yourself free of dogma sadly. If you cannot admit he was wrong about anything then that should tell you something at least. — I like sushi
Have you read Karl Popper's "The Open Society and its Enemies"? I am in the process of reading this currently and it may serve you well to have a browse of it. — I like sushi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Society_and_Its_Enemies
Popper argues that Plato's political philosophy has dangerous tendencies towards totalitarianism, contrary to the benign idyll portrayed by most interpreters.
Popper criticizes Marx at length for his historicism, which he believes led him to overstate his case, and rejects his radical and revolutionary outlook.
Popper advocates for direct liberal democracy as the only form of government that allows institutional improvements without violence and bloodshed.
Plato's ideal state was not a progressive Utopian vision of the future, but rather a historical or even pre-historical one that attempted to reconstruct ancient tribal aristocracies to avoid class war. The ruling class in Plato's best state has an unchallengeable superiority and education. Breeding and training of the ruling class was necessary for ensuring stability, and Plato demanded the same principles be applied as in breeding dogs, horses, or birds.
Popper also discusses Plato's theory of degeneration in the state, where degeneration is a natural evolutionary law that causes decay in all generated things. Plato suggests that knowledge of breeding and the Platonic Number can prevent racial degeneration, but lacking a purely rational method, it will eventually occur. The basis of Plato's historicist sociology is racial degeneration, which "explains the origin of disunion in the ruling class, and with it, the origin of all historical development".
He acknowledges, however, that "too much state control in educational matters is a fatal danger to freedom, since it must lead to indoctrination"
Popper suggests that Plato considered only a few individuals, including himself and some of his friends, as true philosophers eligible for the post of philosopher-king.
According to Popper, the paradox of freedom was "used first, and with success, by Plato", but was "never grasped" by Marx, who held the "naïve view that, in a classless society, state power would lose its function and 'wither away'"
The idea that philosophers would be effective rulers, is laughable. — Tarskian
In terms of naivety I am fairly sure Popper would frame your position as naive due to a clinging to historicism. — I like sushi
I have read the entire Incerto series by Nassim Taleb. In the meanwhile, the man has become quite controversial.No reading suggestions for me?
I have a very simplistic view on politics. At the top, you have the ruling mafia. At the bottom, you have the populace. I cannot imagine a society without either. I acknowledge the existence of both but I do not trust either. — Tarskian
Nassim Taleb. — Tarskian
Democracy is rule by the mob. I will never endorse it. — Tarskian
I have had the feeling that we are living through a very significant revolution right now (on the scale of the creation of civilization) but like many a blind sage I am probably completely wrong because the more I come to learn about everything the less certain I am about anything. Undoubtedly every person in every age felt some kind of severe revolutionary movement on the immediate horizon. — I like sushi
Some people even volunteer to die in foreign lands for their ruling mafia. I cannot imagine any decision more stupid than that. The ruling mafia does not give a flying fart about you. Never have. Never will. So, why would you? — Tarskian
I agree with everything here pretty much except the view that there is a "ruling mafia". I do not believe most of what happens in the political sphere is directed by any upper echelon of society. — I like sushi
Karl Marx (1818–1883) is often treated as a revolutionary, an activist rather than a philosopher, whose works inspired the foundation of many communist regimes in the twentieth century.
This book attempts to expound the philosophy of Karl Marx. But the first question it must address is whether Marx has a philosophy at all. Marx’s principal academic training was in philosophy, but in his mature thought Marx focuses on political economy and the history of capitalism, and usually tends to neglect the philosophical side even of his own theories. Even in his early writings, Marx does not often address himself directly to philosophical questions, but treats such questions only in the course of developing his ideas about contemporary society or criticizing the ideas of others. If it is possible to describe Marx as a philosopher, it is probably more accurate to describe him as an economist, historian, political theorist or sociologist, and above all as a working class organizer and revolutionary.
Yet Marx is also a systematic thinker, who attaches great importance to the underlying methods and aims of his theory and the general outlook on the human predicament expressed in it. In his mature writings, every topic – from the most technical questions of political economy to the most specific issues of practical politics – are viewed in the context of a single comprehensive program of inquiry, vitally connected to the practical movement for working class emancipation. Further, Marx views his own thought as heir to a definite philosophical tradition, or rather as combining two traditions: that of German idealist philosophy from Kant to Hegel in which he was educated, and that of Enlightenment materialism which he greatly admired. Most of all, Marx’s social theories consciously raise important philosophical questions: about human nature and human aspirations, about society and history and the proper business of those who would study them scientifically, about the right way to approach the rational assessment and alteration of social arrangements. At least in some cases, Marx supplies some original and distinctive answers to these questions. Thus the tradition of thought in which Marx’s social theory consciously stands, the breadth of its scope and the questions it addresses all justify us in speaking of Marx as a philosopher. — From the Introduction to Karl Marx by Allen Wood
It is appropriate. A journalist, political thinker, (terrible) economist surely, but philosopher? Hardly. Even calling him a historian is strange, at least for what is understood today with 'historian'. An ideologue and sociologist first and foremost. — Lionino
Karl Marx was the most important of all theorists of socialism. He was not a professional philosopher, although he completed a doctorate in philosophy. His life was devoted to radical political activity, journalism and theoretical studies in history and political economy.
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.