NyChe21
17th January 2005, 20:59
It is apparent throughout history that intellectual breakthroughs in science, economics, and philosophy, are constantly condemned at the time of their conception, and for many years after. The same goes for political science. Even the American revolutionaries of the late 18th century were hailed as radicals at the beginning of the revolutionary period. Today, we can question the revolutions and politics of the past in three different methods. In the science of politics, we have three criteria in which to judge the ‘soundness’ of political acts and actors. Students of the political realm must consider ethical importance, empirical evidence, and prudential values when examining events. If we apply these measures to political acts and actors, can we not evaluate political theorists in the same way? In using these criteria, and examining the thought of late 19th century political thinker Karl Marx, one must consider him to be a significant figure, if not the most noteworthy political philosopher, with continuing influence over entire continents and generations.
The Communist Manifesto, written and published in 1848, remains one of the most influential writings in history, for both its ethics and the actions that it inspired. While being propagandistic in its tone, and clear in its message to all workers to consolidate and unite against the oppression of capitalist economics, the manifest of the Communist Party retains an ethical component not to be denied. Many liberal politicians may criticize the practical ideas of Karl Marx and followers such as Russian Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin, but proponents of the ‘revolution’ consistently refer to the moral values and goals laid out by Marx and Friedrich Engels in the manifesto. Although the actions of a select few may have tainted Marxist politics forever in the eyes of liberal democrats, the actual ethical principles held by Karl Marx are undeniably utopian and positive in value.
The liberation and emancipation of the human race as a whole is a pure and true dream and an ideal worth striving for. Liberals and conservatives hold this belief as strongly as Karl Marx did during his study of the capitalist system and its indubitable dark side. The philosophes of previous generations and revolutions stated the human liberty is only possible through cooperation in a governing body to set and abide by rule of law. Government was to restrain the destructive urges of man and point them in a constructive direction without infringing on his or her desires. Although this idea of liberty as stated by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke came to fruition during the American Revolution and constitutional period, a system of laissez-faire economics became an indisputable contributor to the liberal democratic revolutions of the time. Like the representative democracy, free market economics sought to allow individuals the freedom and liberty to pursue sustenance independently in order to harness the creative ability of man to prosper in and adapt to different market conditions and prices. But the ability of a select few to dominate others is something that fits well into the capitalist system; Marx saw this as unjust as slave ownership. Karl Marx and his materialist approach to history and politics enlightened the world to a concept that had not been actively explored before, which is the concept of economic freedom, supposedly provided by laissez-faire economies. Although historical Marxists have a long rap sheet of human rights violations and economic malaise, the theories set out by Karl Marx remain idealistic and provide an ethical vision rivaled by few.
Marx declared that the dark side of free market system is that it can allow individuals to not only rise, but dominate and exploit others. This statement is ethical in nature and is undeniably correct. After years of empirical and sociological study of Marxist views, the capitalist system of exploitation does not provide liberty. It is a stratified and closed system in which each generation is subject to the identical conditions and limited opportunities as the one that came before. Concisely, the ‘liberty’ to move up and down the socioeconomic ladder is restricted in the modern capitalist structure. Marx’s communist ideal, utopian in vision, erases this ladder completely, allowing for all of humanity to build its ladder together, leaving no man or group behind.
Marx’s empirical judgments about the stratification system that, in his analysis, divides society into a ruling capitalist class and a proletariat, or working class, has influenced empirical politics and sociology. His materialist approach to history has provided social scientists with a greater understanding of class revolutions and the development of civilization. Empirically, Marx’s theory is proved correct to a certain extent with the advent of the global market. Although it may have been difficult to separate the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’ in industrialized countries with large, prospering middle classes during the middle of the twentieth century, the globalization of the economy has magnified the exploitative tendencies of capitalism so that an educated populace can easily determine the lessened reality of economic freedom under the fully developed capitalist system. Today’s world of political and economic domination by a plutocratic few supports both Marx’s materialist approach to social science and his empirical statements about the capitalist ruling class.
There is strong empirical and ethical value and soundness to the philosophy of Karl Marx. Although his theories may be both empirically valid and idealistic, the actual feasibility of the ideas expressed in The Communist Manifesto must be discussed. Many critics of social democracy and the dream of Marxist utopia believe that parts of human nature that communism endeavors to liberate also renders the reality of the communist state to be illusory. Strictly human behavioral tendencies such as greed and individualism do not lend themselves to the goals of any communist regime. Many proponents of liberal democracy assert that their preferred form of government, along with the capitalist market economy, provides the essential freedoms that man desires, such as those listed by English political philosopher John Locke; these are “life, liberty, and property”. These three concepts gave birth to the foremost revolutions of the modern political age, those of France and the American states. But what of the freedom guaranteed by Marxism? Does the communist revolution provide the economic freedom that is denied by capitalism?
The examples of communism witnessed in the twentieth century could not provide that freedom. Although Marx concurred with eighteenth century political philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau in that private property is a source of discord throughout human history, the answer given by The Communist Manifesto revealed itself to be indisputably impractical and unrealistic. In the course of the ‘revolution’, it was proved that no dictatorship of the proletariat could predict historical events or a population’s demand without oppression of certain rights such as freedom of the press and speech. Another mistake in Marx’s dialectic is the refusal of Marx and Engels to recognize the unique capability of the state to regulate and adjust the laissez-faire economy in order to benefit and appease the proletariat. Nor could he predict the damage that a world war could inflict on the possibility of a global worker’s organization. Such was the case in the Great War.
The case for the prudential value of the Marxian communist ideal is as thus. The true communist revolution remains to be demonstrated. No country that has attempted a communist revolution experienced the situation that Marx envisioned as the economic state that would foster such a conversion. Neither czarist Russia nor the agrarian nations of China and Cuba possessed the industrial capability to produce sustenance for its people. In Marx’s state, the industrial economy of the evil capitalists would overproduce while still exploit the working class with high prices and long working hours. The revolutionaries of the twentieth century endeavored to create a communist state in economically backward nations. One must give this historical truth recognition when considering the importance of Marxist thought. The feasibility of the communist utopia has not been realized yet, nevertheless it remains a goal for the revisionists and reformists in socialist democracies such as Germany and Sweden. Some economic concepts that Marx brings to light in his writings, such as public ownership of industry and distribution of national product have been staples of a few nations in combating the marginalization of the working class by plutocratic capitalism.
Even the intensely capitalistic and liberal democratic entity on the globe, the United States of America, submitted to socialist ethics and ideals in the 1930’s, when the huge surpluses produced drove prices down and the debt bubble burst. Redistribution of income, government support for public construction projects reflected socialist ideals while causing some members of the corporate class to believe that President Roosevelt was converting to communism. Although radical communism was not and may never be a feasible way of life for mankind, Marxist reformers and socialists have embraced the proletariat and discovered peacefully democratic avenues of ‘revolution’. Empirically, these revisionist actors in the German and Swedish republics still encounter the hills and valleys of the capitalist economy, but have nevertheless made vast strides in other areas such as significantly reduced illiteracy rate and most importantly, a socioeconomic system with increased social mobility for the working and lower classes. These are results that even the critical personality of Karl Marx could not argue with.
The Communist Manifesto, written and published in 1848, remains one of the most influential writings in history, for both its ethics and the actions that it inspired. While being propagandistic in its tone, and clear in its message to all workers to consolidate and unite against the oppression of capitalist economics, the manifest of the Communist Party retains an ethical component not to be denied. Many liberal politicians may criticize the practical ideas of Karl Marx and followers such as Russian Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin, but proponents of the ‘revolution’ consistently refer to the moral values and goals laid out by Marx and Friedrich Engels in the manifesto. Although the actions of a select few may have tainted Marxist politics forever in the eyes of liberal democrats, the actual ethical principles held by Karl Marx are undeniably utopian and positive in value.
The liberation and emancipation of the human race as a whole is a pure and true dream and an ideal worth striving for. Liberals and conservatives hold this belief as strongly as Karl Marx did during his study of the capitalist system and its indubitable dark side. The philosophes of previous generations and revolutions stated the human liberty is only possible through cooperation in a governing body to set and abide by rule of law. Government was to restrain the destructive urges of man and point them in a constructive direction without infringing on his or her desires. Although this idea of liberty as stated by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke came to fruition during the American Revolution and constitutional period, a system of laissez-faire economics became an indisputable contributor to the liberal democratic revolutions of the time. Like the representative democracy, free market economics sought to allow individuals the freedom and liberty to pursue sustenance independently in order to harness the creative ability of man to prosper in and adapt to different market conditions and prices. But the ability of a select few to dominate others is something that fits well into the capitalist system; Marx saw this as unjust as slave ownership. Karl Marx and his materialist approach to history and politics enlightened the world to a concept that had not been actively explored before, which is the concept of economic freedom, supposedly provided by laissez-faire economies. Although historical Marxists have a long rap sheet of human rights violations and economic malaise, the theories set out by Karl Marx remain idealistic and provide an ethical vision rivaled by few.
Marx declared that the dark side of free market system is that it can allow individuals to not only rise, but dominate and exploit others. This statement is ethical in nature and is undeniably correct. After years of empirical and sociological study of Marxist views, the capitalist system of exploitation does not provide liberty. It is a stratified and closed system in which each generation is subject to the identical conditions and limited opportunities as the one that came before. Concisely, the ‘liberty’ to move up and down the socioeconomic ladder is restricted in the modern capitalist structure. Marx’s communist ideal, utopian in vision, erases this ladder completely, allowing for all of humanity to build its ladder together, leaving no man or group behind.
Marx’s empirical judgments about the stratification system that, in his analysis, divides society into a ruling capitalist class and a proletariat, or working class, has influenced empirical politics and sociology. His materialist approach to history has provided social scientists with a greater understanding of class revolutions and the development of civilization. Empirically, Marx’s theory is proved correct to a certain extent with the advent of the global market. Although it may have been difficult to separate the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’ in industrialized countries with large, prospering middle classes during the middle of the twentieth century, the globalization of the economy has magnified the exploitative tendencies of capitalism so that an educated populace can easily determine the lessened reality of economic freedom under the fully developed capitalist system. Today’s world of political and economic domination by a plutocratic few supports both Marx’s materialist approach to social science and his empirical statements about the capitalist ruling class.
There is strong empirical and ethical value and soundness to the philosophy of Karl Marx. Although his theories may be both empirically valid and idealistic, the actual feasibility of the ideas expressed in The Communist Manifesto must be discussed. Many critics of social democracy and the dream of Marxist utopia believe that parts of human nature that communism endeavors to liberate also renders the reality of the communist state to be illusory. Strictly human behavioral tendencies such as greed and individualism do not lend themselves to the goals of any communist regime. Many proponents of liberal democracy assert that their preferred form of government, along with the capitalist market economy, provides the essential freedoms that man desires, such as those listed by English political philosopher John Locke; these are “life, liberty, and property”. These three concepts gave birth to the foremost revolutions of the modern political age, those of France and the American states. But what of the freedom guaranteed by Marxism? Does the communist revolution provide the economic freedom that is denied by capitalism?
The examples of communism witnessed in the twentieth century could not provide that freedom. Although Marx concurred with eighteenth century political philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau in that private property is a source of discord throughout human history, the answer given by The Communist Manifesto revealed itself to be indisputably impractical and unrealistic. In the course of the ‘revolution’, it was proved that no dictatorship of the proletariat could predict historical events or a population’s demand without oppression of certain rights such as freedom of the press and speech. Another mistake in Marx’s dialectic is the refusal of Marx and Engels to recognize the unique capability of the state to regulate and adjust the laissez-faire economy in order to benefit and appease the proletariat. Nor could he predict the damage that a world war could inflict on the possibility of a global worker’s organization. Such was the case in the Great War.
The case for the prudential value of the Marxian communist ideal is as thus. The true communist revolution remains to be demonstrated. No country that has attempted a communist revolution experienced the situation that Marx envisioned as the economic state that would foster such a conversion. Neither czarist Russia nor the agrarian nations of China and Cuba possessed the industrial capability to produce sustenance for its people. In Marx’s state, the industrial economy of the evil capitalists would overproduce while still exploit the working class with high prices and long working hours. The revolutionaries of the twentieth century endeavored to create a communist state in economically backward nations. One must give this historical truth recognition when considering the importance of Marxist thought. The feasibility of the communist utopia has not been realized yet, nevertheless it remains a goal for the revisionists and reformists in socialist democracies such as Germany and Sweden. Some economic concepts that Marx brings to light in his writings, such as public ownership of industry and distribution of national product have been staples of a few nations in combating the marginalization of the working class by plutocratic capitalism.
Even the intensely capitalistic and liberal democratic entity on the globe, the United States of America, submitted to socialist ethics and ideals in the 1930’s, when the huge surpluses produced drove prices down and the debt bubble burst. Redistribution of income, government support for public construction projects reflected socialist ideals while causing some members of the corporate class to believe that President Roosevelt was converting to communism. Although radical communism was not and may never be a feasible way of life for mankind, Marxist reformers and socialists have embraced the proletariat and discovered peacefully democratic avenues of ‘revolution’. Empirically, these revisionist actors in the German and Swedish republics still encounter the hills and valleys of the capitalist economy, but have nevertheless made vast strides in other areas such as significantly reduced illiteracy rate and most importantly, a socioeconomic system with increased social mobility for the working and lower classes. These are results that even the critical personality of Karl Marx could not argue with.