EricStPierre
24th September 2009, 14:01
Where Marx Went Wrong
Part I
So much potential
Such high marks
Squandered
Wallowing bitterness
To be a good person
Is not enough
Must strive for greatness
For fame
Can't stand their apathetic looks
Not good enough
Behind the eyes
Who are you to judge?
Who am I to judge?
Leave me alone
To bat for the proletariate
Who don't know they're proletariate
I tire of external validation
Of social esteem
Of class climbing
Bittersweet simplicity is enough
Your ivory towers are cold and empty
The view from that high
Is just as dark
The unwashed masses are more welcoming
And don't have that damn look in their eye
A dishwasher makes better company
Than your precious millionares
I would like to start out this series of essays by reminding many and informing some that this is not an attempt to bash Marx or his works. I love and admire Karl Marx, he is one of my longtime heroes, however, I must remain a revisionist Marxist because I think that as a system Marx's theories fell short in some places and were somewhat unrealistic in actual application. I think the basic underlying values of Marx's ideas are absolutely phenomenal and that everyone should study his ideas and how they have been twisted and bastardized over the years.
Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!
---Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto, 1848
I feel that Marx's most grievous error when constructing his system of thought was that he believed too whole-heartedly in the basic goodness of people. Marx's worldview was too much along the lines of John Locke. Basically, that people are born basically good and that through education and experience all people will come to the same conclusions that all human life is sacred and that it is our duty to protect, cherish and help one another. I truly wish that I could believe this way as Marx did, but my experience with the world has left me entirely too cynical to do so. If Marx falls under the category of Locke, I am afraid that I find myself categorized under the heading of those who side with Hobbes.
Marx seemed to truly believe that there was only a small group of people in the world who wanted to horde wealth and keep up with the rigid social structure that accompanies capitalist forms of government. Further, he thought that once these people were removed from their place of power that their kind would never exist again. I think this was a failing on Marx's part. Deep down, at our most brutish level, we like social distinction. As disgusting as it sounds to many of our modern sensibilities, people thrive on being better than others. I think that this derives from our animal nature and the fight for dominance that we have inherited along with most other social mammals. We are no different than wolves in a pack that vie for the alpha status or bull Elephant Seals fighting it out on a beach for more territory and more females. Before capitalism, before civilization even, we lived and died to be higher ranked than others in our human herd. Even in still existing so-called primitive cultures, people struggle to gain higher social status than others. It might be simply for recognition among the other members of the group or a better place by the fire or for the tastier cuts of meat off the day's kill, but it is the same struggle to be better and more than others; the terms are simply different. And so, if the "haves" were deprived of their possessions and social status, a new kind of privileged class would very quickly emerge. The terms of that class might be different, but the underlying principle of being "better" than the masses would still exist. As the pain and turmoil of revolution and radical change washed away, yesterday's "have nots" would become tomorrow's "haves". It is simply human nature. Left to our own devices it is just what we do to each other.
It is this underlying and very powerful urge to acquire social distinction that undermines Marx's belief that people would rise up en masse in order to win economic and social freedom for groups of people they had never known and had never met. People are really only capable of caring about and sacrificing themselves for a very limited number of people with whom they identify in some manner. Once again, I know that most of us can think of a few very poignant examples of individuals who have or do break this stereotype, but do you know why you know the names of those few individuals? Because they are very rare in this world, and so make a name for themselves. People often give lip service to the idea of helping others, of making things better for the masses of downtrodden who are forced to work their hands to the bone for someone else's greedy profit, but when it comes down to actually doing something, to risking one's own life or even just a bit of comfort, people stop short and so go no further than talk. Most people do not care about the masses of the world in other than an abstract sense or else they would not stand for what is done to the masses. Some people are not even capable of caring about their own flesh and blood and the sacrifices necessary to ensure their survival and ability to thrive, much less that of people they will never know, from places of which they know little. I think that overall Marx gravely overestimated people's ability to care and take action on behalf of the people of the world because he himself was such an overwhelming humanitarian. I think it truly pained Marx to think of the suffering and deprivation of others and he could not imagine that most other people did not feel the same way, that they did not feel the same pangs at the idea of the afflictions of the lower classes. These feelings were to Marx's credit, however, they are a mark against the practicality of his theories in real world application.
I think that the biggest piece of evidence that points out Marx's basic Lockianism is when he states that the state will eventually wither away. This idea that people will simply learn to take care of one another without some sort of overall guiding entity that will force them to take into consideration the needs and welfare of others has been proven to be impossible again and again. People seem unable to self-regulate on a mass scale in a positive manner. From the beginning we have proven ourselves to be greedy and conniving creatures and when left to our own devices it seems that sadly we turn to the principle that "might makes right". If a person is stronger than others, then that person simply takes from the weak what they want, when they want. I realize that there are exceptions and anecdotal evidence to the contrary of this, but I am discussing overall tendencies. Our first stratifications of society in ancient times were based on this principle entirely; the classes that became our leaders did so through brute force and deprivation. Those that were weaker became followers because if they did not, the "leaders" of the world hacked them to pieces or starved them to death. Evidence of this can be found in the constant battles in the area now known as the Fertile Crescent, the conquest of the Minoans by the Mycenaean culture, or the rise of the ruling class of Egypt.
When a power vacuum exists in a given area there will always be a group of people who will see it as an opportunity to take over and run the show in their own horribly brutal way. Anyone who has been in area that normally has a rigid social structure that has suddenly been destroyed by natural disaster and/or war can attest to the fact that it does not take very long for armed gangs to start roaming the streets and handing out their own twisted form of social justice.
I wish that Marx had been right about the fact that once goods were distributed among the masses that everyone could then learn to get along without false scarcity or radical social and economic distinction, I truly do. However, I just do not see this as ever actually being possible unless the very nature of the human animal somehow was radically altered. So, I must disagree with Marx that the new socialist/communist utopia would allow for the state to wither away or that it even should. Instead, I think an even larger government mechanism would have to exist in order to ensure that the principles of true equality and the distribution of wealth among the masses would be possible.
The mark of truly great man is not how he treats he superiors or his peers, but rather how he treats the least of his people. I think in this arena Karl Marx proved himself to be one of the greatest of men. He faced political and national exile, bodily harm, and intellectual ridicule not to impress the powerful or the rich but rather in order to try to make the lot of the lower classes better. He worked tirelessly to help people he would never know and many of whom did not even understand his ideas. He embraced the plight of the lower classes not just in his own country or culture, but of all worldwide. I feel that this puts him among the ranks of the greatest of men. I admire Marx for his ability to see the good in mankind and to strive to bring that goodness into the forefront of society instead of allowing to be trampled upon by greed and social bias. He was truly a man ahead of his time. I wish that I could share his overwhelmingly optimistic outlook on people as a whole but find myself unable to do so. Although I think that his optimism blinded him somewhat to how difficult it would be to create a truly utopian state in which mistreatment of the lower classes and socioeconomic persecution no longer existed, I still must admire him for it.
- Kate Gonzalez
For the original, go to bogspot and search for
Taking Things Apart, By the Polite Society
I cannot yet post a dirrect link.
Part I
So much potential
Such high marks
Squandered
Wallowing bitterness
To be a good person
Is not enough
Must strive for greatness
For fame
Can't stand their apathetic looks
Not good enough
Behind the eyes
Who are you to judge?
Who am I to judge?
Leave me alone
To bat for the proletariate
Who don't know they're proletariate
I tire of external validation
Of social esteem
Of class climbing
Bittersweet simplicity is enough
Your ivory towers are cold and empty
The view from that high
Is just as dark
The unwashed masses are more welcoming
And don't have that damn look in their eye
A dishwasher makes better company
Than your precious millionares
I would like to start out this series of essays by reminding many and informing some that this is not an attempt to bash Marx or his works. I love and admire Karl Marx, he is one of my longtime heroes, however, I must remain a revisionist Marxist because I think that as a system Marx's theories fell short in some places and were somewhat unrealistic in actual application. I think the basic underlying values of Marx's ideas are absolutely phenomenal and that everyone should study his ideas and how they have been twisted and bastardized over the years.
Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!
---Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto, 1848
I feel that Marx's most grievous error when constructing his system of thought was that he believed too whole-heartedly in the basic goodness of people. Marx's worldview was too much along the lines of John Locke. Basically, that people are born basically good and that through education and experience all people will come to the same conclusions that all human life is sacred and that it is our duty to protect, cherish and help one another. I truly wish that I could believe this way as Marx did, but my experience with the world has left me entirely too cynical to do so. If Marx falls under the category of Locke, I am afraid that I find myself categorized under the heading of those who side with Hobbes.
Marx seemed to truly believe that there was only a small group of people in the world who wanted to horde wealth and keep up with the rigid social structure that accompanies capitalist forms of government. Further, he thought that once these people were removed from their place of power that their kind would never exist again. I think this was a failing on Marx's part. Deep down, at our most brutish level, we like social distinction. As disgusting as it sounds to many of our modern sensibilities, people thrive on being better than others. I think that this derives from our animal nature and the fight for dominance that we have inherited along with most other social mammals. We are no different than wolves in a pack that vie for the alpha status or bull Elephant Seals fighting it out on a beach for more territory and more females. Before capitalism, before civilization even, we lived and died to be higher ranked than others in our human herd. Even in still existing so-called primitive cultures, people struggle to gain higher social status than others. It might be simply for recognition among the other members of the group or a better place by the fire or for the tastier cuts of meat off the day's kill, but it is the same struggle to be better and more than others; the terms are simply different. And so, if the "haves" were deprived of their possessions and social status, a new kind of privileged class would very quickly emerge. The terms of that class might be different, but the underlying principle of being "better" than the masses would still exist. As the pain and turmoil of revolution and radical change washed away, yesterday's "have nots" would become tomorrow's "haves". It is simply human nature. Left to our own devices it is just what we do to each other.
It is this underlying and very powerful urge to acquire social distinction that undermines Marx's belief that people would rise up en masse in order to win economic and social freedom for groups of people they had never known and had never met. People are really only capable of caring about and sacrificing themselves for a very limited number of people with whom they identify in some manner. Once again, I know that most of us can think of a few very poignant examples of individuals who have or do break this stereotype, but do you know why you know the names of those few individuals? Because they are very rare in this world, and so make a name for themselves. People often give lip service to the idea of helping others, of making things better for the masses of downtrodden who are forced to work their hands to the bone for someone else's greedy profit, but when it comes down to actually doing something, to risking one's own life or even just a bit of comfort, people stop short and so go no further than talk. Most people do not care about the masses of the world in other than an abstract sense or else they would not stand for what is done to the masses. Some people are not even capable of caring about their own flesh and blood and the sacrifices necessary to ensure their survival and ability to thrive, much less that of people they will never know, from places of which they know little. I think that overall Marx gravely overestimated people's ability to care and take action on behalf of the people of the world because he himself was such an overwhelming humanitarian. I think it truly pained Marx to think of the suffering and deprivation of others and he could not imagine that most other people did not feel the same way, that they did not feel the same pangs at the idea of the afflictions of the lower classes. These feelings were to Marx's credit, however, they are a mark against the practicality of his theories in real world application.
I think that the biggest piece of evidence that points out Marx's basic Lockianism is when he states that the state will eventually wither away. This idea that people will simply learn to take care of one another without some sort of overall guiding entity that will force them to take into consideration the needs and welfare of others has been proven to be impossible again and again. People seem unable to self-regulate on a mass scale in a positive manner. From the beginning we have proven ourselves to be greedy and conniving creatures and when left to our own devices it seems that sadly we turn to the principle that "might makes right". If a person is stronger than others, then that person simply takes from the weak what they want, when they want. I realize that there are exceptions and anecdotal evidence to the contrary of this, but I am discussing overall tendencies. Our first stratifications of society in ancient times were based on this principle entirely; the classes that became our leaders did so through brute force and deprivation. Those that were weaker became followers because if they did not, the "leaders" of the world hacked them to pieces or starved them to death. Evidence of this can be found in the constant battles in the area now known as the Fertile Crescent, the conquest of the Minoans by the Mycenaean culture, or the rise of the ruling class of Egypt.
When a power vacuum exists in a given area there will always be a group of people who will see it as an opportunity to take over and run the show in their own horribly brutal way. Anyone who has been in area that normally has a rigid social structure that has suddenly been destroyed by natural disaster and/or war can attest to the fact that it does not take very long for armed gangs to start roaming the streets and handing out their own twisted form of social justice.
I wish that Marx had been right about the fact that once goods were distributed among the masses that everyone could then learn to get along without false scarcity or radical social and economic distinction, I truly do. However, I just do not see this as ever actually being possible unless the very nature of the human animal somehow was radically altered. So, I must disagree with Marx that the new socialist/communist utopia would allow for the state to wither away or that it even should. Instead, I think an even larger government mechanism would have to exist in order to ensure that the principles of true equality and the distribution of wealth among the masses would be possible.
The mark of truly great man is not how he treats he superiors or his peers, but rather how he treats the least of his people. I think in this arena Karl Marx proved himself to be one of the greatest of men. He faced political and national exile, bodily harm, and intellectual ridicule not to impress the powerful or the rich but rather in order to try to make the lot of the lower classes better. He worked tirelessly to help people he would never know and many of whom did not even understand his ideas. He embraced the plight of the lower classes not just in his own country or culture, but of all worldwide. I feel that this puts him among the ranks of the greatest of men. I admire Marx for his ability to see the good in mankind and to strive to bring that goodness into the forefront of society instead of allowing to be trampled upon by greed and social bias. He was truly a man ahead of his time. I wish that I could share his overwhelmingly optimistic outlook on people as a whole but find myself unable to do so. Although I think that his optimism blinded him somewhat to how difficult it would be to create a truly utopian state in which mistreatment of the lower classes and socioeconomic persecution no longer existed, I still must admire him for it.
- Kate Gonzalez
For the original, go to bogspot and search for
Taking Things Apart, By the Polite Society
I cannot yet post a dirrect link.