Entry 2128, on 2021-05-24 at 18:41:35 (Rating 2, Philosophy)
I am currently listening to an audiobook about philosophy. It tries to cover the whole history of the subject, mainly from a Western perspective, but also including Chinese, Indian, Islamic, and other points of view. I am getting near the end now, and the book is currently covering the philosophy of Karl Marx.
Marx generally evokes one of two responses: either he is a great villain and indirectly responsible for some of the greatest tragedies in global politics, or he some sort of visionary who can see what needs to change to make the world a better place. Of course, that dichotomy applies to a minority, because the majority of people know almost nothing about him at all, although few would not know his name.
I have tended towards the former assessment recently, because some ideas from Marxism have been used in incredibly destructive ways, by groups who are primarily negative, like Black Lives Matter, but after having his thoughts summarised in this book I now realise that a lot of what he said actually did have some validity. Note that I said "some" validity: I'm not a Marxist! But read on...
For some examples of what he got right, consider these concepts from his economic philosophy and ask yourself if they were, in some ways, quite prophetic: the capitalist system is exploitative and unstable; this instability will lead to recurring crises, of increasingly severity; there will be growing poverty for workers; the working class are the origin of revolutions; specialisation will lead to increasingly complex jobs; human workers will be replaced by automation leading to their alienation from the means of production; the state primarily makes laws supporting the ruling class at the expense of the workers.
You may not fully agree with all of that, and in fact I don't either, but I think there are some fairly relevant ideas there that we should pay attention to. For example, the idea that capitalism is unstable and is susceptible to increasingly severe breakdowns seems almost irrefutable given the series of economic crises we have endured over the last century.
And the working class being forced into work for a source of income (rather than owning land, or farming for their own benefit, as in the past), which then becomes more specialised, and is eventually replaced with machines which can perform those specialised jobs better, also seems accurate.
He also said that all political parties are primarily there to maintain the system as it is, and that voting is largely a futile exercise, since the majority of people will be disadvantaged whoever wins the election, reflects a lot of modern opinions on the subject, although that relates more to an inflexible two party system like the US has, and maybe less to more modern systems like we have in New Zealand.
But some nuance should be applied to many of those points. For example, saying that the working class will become more poor under capitalism isn't completely true. Sure, in comparison to the economic elite class, the workers are falling behind, but in absolute terms they have never been richer, and this is because of the efficiency of capitalist production.
But Marx's biggest error wasn't in pointing out the problems with capitalism, it was in his suggested solution to those problems. He thought that the juxtaposition of poverty of many and the wealth of few would become more obvious, and communism more become more attractive. Again, this is a prophetic thought because that is exactly what is happening in the US: the central hub of capitalism in the world.
But being "correct" doesn't mean he was "right". I think it is fairly clear that abandoning capitalism in favour of communism is like jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire! Not only does communism fail as an economic system in theory, but it is also very clear in practice that it doesn't work in the real world either.
Look at the revolutions of the 20th century, which were inspired by Marx. Consider the repressive regimes in the USSR, China, and Cambodia, amongst others. Communism has been clearly discredited. Instead of a solution to a particular set of (admittedly real) problems, it becomes a source of far worse problems, and often makes those it was supposed to solve even more prominent.
And for those who claim that none of the examples I gave above are "true communism" I ask this: is true communism even possible, considering we haven't seen it yet, despite numerous attempts. And if we play the old "true" game with communism, why not play it with capitalism as well? Maybe the problems with many Western societies today is that they have a diluted or impure version, and not "true" capitalism.
See how easy that argument is? There's even an informal logical fallacy which specifically describes it: the "no true Scotsman fallacy".
In one of my favourite quotes of all time, Churchill said that democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all the rest. Maybe capitalism is the worst economic system, apart from all the rest. Maybe we need to accept that no system will ever be perfect, and that the pursuit of perfection should not get in the way of the achievement of something that is good enough.
It is always tempting to try something new when the current state of affairs is found to be sub-optimal, but we should not forget the fact that we live in the most peaceful, safe, healthy, prosperous era in the history of the world. A lot of that is because of the benefits of science, but a lot of it is also because of democracy, and - I would suggest - because of capitalism.
Comment 1 by dolphinwrite on 2021-06-17 at 11:00:16:
Only one thing here: If a person has a "need" to be seen as smart, an intellectual, or wise, they will never understand. They will also be the puppet of those who put them on any kind of pedestal.
Comment 2 by OJB on 2021-06-17 at 12:00:17:
Well, I guess that is partly true, at least. I hate to put everyone who has a need to be seen as smart in the same category, but I see your point. It is an in-group thing. You want to fit in to the "smart" community, then you have to have the same beliefs, or at least pretend to.
Comment 3 by dolphinwrite on 2021-06-17 at 20:25:33:
And that’s what keeps America free, truly free, when needing to be in a clique is not common. As my friend once said, he belongs to a clique of one.
Comment 4 by OJB on 2021-06-17 at 20:30:31:
I also reject the idea of cliques. I am constantly on guard to avoid being told what to think by others. I really value my intellectual freedom highly, to the extent that I feel uncomfortable when too many others agree with me! Unfortunately, so many people today are completely tribal, and base their ideas and opinions on what they think their tribe would want them to believe.
Comment 5 by dolphinwrite on 2021-06-18 at 11:54:09:
True. I think it's good if people get together for common causes, for that's how we got the U.S. Constitution, and made a great country that needs men and women to remember what our country used to be, and can be again. But while working together, we don't give up our rights to think and speak. Even the founding fathers talked, argued, and wrote back and forth before finally agreeing on a document that many still wanted some changes. Hence, the bill of rights.
Comment 6 by OJB on 2021-06-18 at 12:01:24:
I guess "getting together" is useful in some circumstances, but I would only do it as an individual wanting to share ideas, resources, etc with others, and not as any permanent commitment. Yes, the combination of division and unity, debate and agreement, disagreement and compromise which good politics exhibited in the past, is conspicuously absent today.
Comment 7 by dolphinwrite on 2021-06-19 at 12:02:07:
Follow your own path, honest with yourself, and let the rest take care of itself.
Comment 8 by OJB on 2021-06-19 at 14:01:08:
Agreed. But easier said than done. Also, constantly reappraise your own beliefs to check them for validity. Don’t be afraid to change your mind. My political beliefs have gone through a major change over the last 10 years. Used to be more socialist, now more tending to libertarian.
Comment 9 by dolphinwrite on 2021-06-20 at 11:31:18:
I guess, in a sense, it is a test, though not in the literal meaning. What is important to you, to me, to anyone, will be discovered over the life of each person. If you get a chance, read "Natan Shiransky's" FEAR NO EVIL.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE