Marx question

[anarcho-communist4]

I finished an assignment for my philosophy class and i mentioned marx a few times in it. to cut to the end of the story my phil teacher sent me a message saying

Marx had little faith in the average person


Is this true?

[eric922]

Did he give any reasons for saying this? It would seem to me that Communism places a great amount of faith in the average person.

[Broletariat]

Communism places no faith on anyone at all.


Marxism is the scientific investigation of Capitalism. There is no faith about it at all.

[anarcho-communist4]

well the question was if Karl Marx had faith in the average person
either or, i think my prof is jsut trying to dishearten me about Marxism

[Broletariat]

well the question was if Karl Marx had faith in the average person
either or, i think my prof is jsut trying to dishearten me about Marxism

"faith in the average person" is pretty vague, elaborate.

For Marx there was no "Average person." Marx saw society as being divided into different and fundamentally opposed classes.

There's no hope for the bourgeois obviously, we're going to crush them under the heel of revolution.

[anarcho-communist4]

Yah i now realize my prof was trying to dishearten me.
Thank you though for clearing things up no matter how vague this thread was.

[Broletariat]

Yah i now realize my prof was trying to dishearten me.
Thank you though for clearing things up no matter how vague this thread was.

It's cool bro. But yea, academia tends to be very snooty and just dismiss other schools of thought out of hand.

[Dogs On Acid]

Of course he was disheartening you, did you ever suspect he wasn't?

Marxism is Science, not religion, we don't have a faith... we have a voice.

[Tommy4ever]

As others have said, its a pretty meaningless quip. Marxism essentially has to take an optimistic view of humans (as inherently rational beings), but beyond that its hard to talk about mindless statements like this. If you want to send something back, just leave a sarcastic and mildly insulting comment to show your diregard. :p

[Rooster]

Considering that Marx kinda argues that revolution and communism are social efforts kinda puts that question to rest. The working class have to lead their own revolution and all that.

[Kotze]

Ask your prof for clarification. Was that statement meant in the sense of most people being in need of strong leadership? Was it meant in the sense of people in general lacking imagination and foresight, so that trying to raise awareness now is pointless, and you have to rely on technological and economic development for socialism to have a chance, and then it happens basically automatically? Something else?

[Kornilios Sunshine]

Yeah, Marx was not faith to anyone.He hated EVERYONE,especially communists and he killed 4 hens , 12 communists on the streets with his lethal beard and he was always drinking beer and doing nothing else.
nah just joking don't listen to him, it is pointless to argue with those type of people.BTW,Marx was a very kind a great person.!

[Lorax]

There's a very apropos quote from Marx on this subject:

The social principles of Christianity preach the need for a dominant and an oppressed class, expressing the pious hope that the former will deal kindly with the latter. The social principles of Christianity declare that all infamies will be spiritually compensated in heaven, the assertion being made a justification for the continuance of these infamies on earth. According to the social principles of Christianity, all the misdeeds wrought by the oppressors on the oppressed, are either a just punishment for original sin and other sins, or else are trials which the Lord in his wisdom sends to afflict the redeemed. The social principles of Christianity preach cowardice, self-contempt, abasement, subjection, humility, in a word, all the qualities of the mob; whereas for the proletariat, which does not wish to allow itself to be treated as a mob, courage, selfesteem, pride, and independence, are far more necessary than bread. The social principles of Christianity are obsequious, but the proletariat is revolutionary.

ww.marxists.org/archive/ruhle/1928/marx/ch03.htm

When Marx used the word "mob" here he was basically referring to the "average man" of his day. (That quote is translated from French by the way so he didn't literally use the word "mob.") Anyway my point is Marx definitely distinguished between the "average man," (see for example the average working class American redneck that votes against his own class interest due to a combination of racism and ignorance) and the organized, educated member of the urban proletariat (sometimes I'm afraid Marx was a bit overly optimistic about these folks). Other posters were correct in saying that Marxists have a fundamentally optimistic view about human nature, but they also believe that humans must be properly nurtured in order for the cooperative aspects of human nature to become manifest.

I think your prof's comment was too simplistic but essentially correct, and I don't think he meant any disrespect towards Marx or Marxism.

[Dave B]

Actually the above quotation of a Marx quote or whatever comes originally from the below;

where really he is talking about modern or developed Christianity and it is an analysis that would have be at odds with his admittedly slightly earlier Feuerbachian ideas on the ‘Essence’ of early Christianity.


Anyway;

Karl Marx in the Deutsche Brüsseler-Zeitung The Communism of the Rheinischer Beobachter





The social principles of Christianity have now had eighteen hundred years to be developed, and need no further development by Prussian Consistorial Counsellors.

The social principles of Christianity justified the slavery of antiquity, glorifies the serfdom of the Middle Ages and are capable, in case of need, of defending the oppression of the proletariat, with somewhat doleful grimaces.

The social principles of Christianity preach the necessity of a ruling and an oppressed class, and for the latter all they have to offer is the pious wish that the former may be charitable.

The social principles of Christianity place the Consistorial Counsellor’s compensation for all infamies in heaven, and thereby justify the continuation of these infamies on earth.

The social principles of Christianity declare all the vile acts of the oppressors against the oppressed to be either a just punishment for original sin and other sins, or trials which the Lord, in his infinite wisdom, ordains for the redeemed.

The social principles of Christianity preach cowardice, self-contempt, abasement, submissiveness and humbleness, in short, all the qualities of the rabble, and the proletariat, which will not permit itself to be treated as rabble, needs its courage, its self-confidence, its pride and its sense of independence even more than its bread.

The social principles of Christianity are sneaking and hypocritical, and the proletariat is revolutionary.
So much for the social principles of Christianity.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/09/12.htm

And I think that when you read the rest of it, the interpretation in the previous post looks a bit suspect


Having little faith in the average person is a Leninist idea

V. I. LENIN WHAT IS TO BE DONE?



We have said that there could not yet be Social-Democratic consciousness among the workers. It could only be brought to them from without. The history of all countries shows that the working class exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc.
The theory of Socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical and economic theories that were elaborated by the educated representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals. According to their social status, the founders of modern scientific Socialism, Marx and Engels, themselves belonged to the bourgeois intelligentsia. In the very same way, in Russia, the theoretical doctrine of Social-Democracy arose quite independently of the spontaneous growth of the working-class movement, it arose as a natural and inevitable outcome of the development of ideas among the revolutionary socialist intelligentsia.

http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/WD02i.html

[Lorax]

Dave B: The quote I posted is relatively well known. The relevant part for the purposes of this discussion is an aside rather than the main subject of the piece but I think it was a clear representation of Marx's views about the "mob" (your quote used the word rabble which may be a better translation). I think the word Marx actually used was canaille which is french- when I looked up the word one of the English translations was proletariat but that was obviously not what the young Marx meant to convey.

I don't think my interpretation is suspect at all. I think the quote, standing on its own without any analysis, very clearly illustrates that Marx, at that stage in his intellectual development, had little faith in the "rabble," if you will, while at the same time having much faith in the organized, industrial proletariat.

[ZeroNowhere]

"So far as we are concerned, after our whole past only one way is open to us. For nearly 40 years we have raised to prominence the idea of the class struggle as the immediate driving force of history, and particularly the class struggle between bourgeois and the proletariat as the great lever of the modern social revolution; hence, we can hardly go along with people who want to strike this class struggle from the movement. At the founding of the International, we expressly formulated the battle cry: The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself.


"We cannot, therefore, go along with people who openly claim that the workers are too ignorant to emancipate themselves but must first be emancipated from the top down, by the philanthropic big and petit bourgeois. Should the new party organ take a position that corresponds with the ideas of those gentlemen, become bourgeois and not proletarian, then there is nothing left for us, sorry as we should be to do so, than to speak out against it publicly and dissolve the solidarity within which we have hitherto represented the German party abroad. But we hope it will not come to that.

[Hit The North]

I don't think my interpretation is suspect at all.

Your interpretation relies on "average man" and "rabble" to be identical in Marx's meaning. But nowhere in the quotation, or the article from which it is culled, does Marx make this connection.

In fact, we have plenty of evidence that Marx believed that the "average man" would become a proletarian as capitalism developed.


I think your prof's comment was too simplistic but essentially correct, and I don't think he meant any disrespect towards Marx or Marxism.

On the contrary, I think the prof was incorrect about Marx's attitude to ordinary people and I think his comments are not only ignorant but also malicious.

[Misanthrope]

We don't need to hope(or have faith in Holy Marx), capitalism's failure is inevitable. When? I don't know.

[ВАЛТЕР]

I believe he was trying to imply that Marx didn't believe that anyone can "pull themselves up by their bootstraps".
He was being vague, and trying to make you second-guess your beliefs by using that vague of a comment.

Vagueness can be a formidable weapon when trying to make someone question themselves. However it is often a paper tiger as it is used to protect beliefs that they cannot defend effectively. Often you will see religious people being vague about God and whatnot.

I would pressure him and ask him what he meant by that comment. But don't be a dick about it since after all he controls your grade.

[ZeroNowhere]

I believe he was trying to imply that Marx didn't believe that anyone can "pull themselves up by their bootstraps".
Really, it's probably far more likely that he was referring to the idea that Marx was against democracy and for 'totalitarianism', etc.

[Rodrigo]

Lenin's What To Do? quotation posted here is Lenin defending the vanguard party (commonly said "Leninist-oriented party") principle, in which the anarchic spontaneity of the masses have to be correctly directed/driven/conducted by a party with revolutionary theory (Marxism) and the knowledge of the "laws of the movement of the revolution", correcting mistakes and deviations, clarifying how things are going on, that is, analyzing the specific period - using the scientific method, dialectics and materialism - to make clear what groups are enemies and what groups are friendly. That is, summarizing, transform chaos into organization.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Really, it's probably far more likely that he was referring to the idea that Marx was against democracy and for 'totalitarianism', etc.

Yeah, I can see that being the case too...

Either way he was vague, and very wrong...

If anyone in history has been in favor of democracy it was Marx.

[Dogs On Acid]

Lenin's What To Do? quotation posted here is Lenin defending the vanguard party (commonly said "Leninist-oriented party") principle, in which the anarchic spontaneity of the masses have to be correctly directed/driven/conducted by a party with revolutionary theory (Marxism) and the knowledge of the "laws of the movement of the revolution", correcting mistakes and deviations, clarifying how things are going on, that is, analyzing the specific period - using the scientific method, dialectics and materialism - to make clear what groups are enemies and what groups are friendly. That is, summarizing, transform chaos into organization.

Except they failed to instill Marxism in the Soviet people, and the Party slowly reformed the country into Capitalism before their very eyes. Then, when the people did speak up, they were crushed by the exact vanguard that was supposed to keep them under it's wing.

Basically, if the vanguard is the people's will, then how were the people oppressing themselves? Obviously it doesn't represent the will of the people, but of a minority.

[Catmatic Leftist]

My suggestion is to confront the teacher about it. We can speculate all day, but we don't know what he meant unless you give us more information.

If you're not shy, you should try to bring it up in the middle of class if time permits. That way, you can expose them to Marx and sew that seed of doubt if you can defend your beliefs well enough.

[Hit The North]

Invite your teacher to share his thoughts on Rev Left and we'll endeavour to educate him ;)

[Broletariat]

Invite your teacher to share his thoughts on Rev Left and we'll endeavour to educate him ;)

If the guy wants a serious conversation with theoretical intensity, I would NOT direct him to revleft.

My webforum on the other hand ;)

[Desperado]

The emancipation of labor must be the work of the laboring class itself

Seems like faith (as in trust) in the average person (as in the proletariat, the great mass of the population) to me. He was no Blanquist, nor was he a Hobbes - humans have been alienated from their natural "species being" by capitalism.

I have little faith in your average phil teacher's understanding of Marx...