Karl Marx's ideas about alienation

SonOfDaedalus said:

I'm not suggesting that workers should fully control the company but that they should have more control than they currently have.

Click to expand...

This is where a flaw of socialism appears. They believe that a capitalist controls production. But he or she doesn't. In no rational economy could that be the case.
The consumers of goods and services control production. Their wants and desires determines how production is developed and shaped.

Athanasius68 said:

This is where a flaw of socialism appears. They believe that a capitalist controls production. But he or she doesn't. In no rational economy could that be the case.
The consumers of goods and services control production. Their wants and desires determines how production is developed and shaped.

Click to expand...

No one is after pure socialism. Not even Bernie Sanders. Only a basic safety net for protection of human rights: like food, shelter, clean water, basic education, and access to healthcare.

Because no one living in a modern developed economy should ever have to face such desperate situations where they have lost access to those things. There is nothing in a pure capitalist system that protects against that kind of fall. Having such safety nets allows people to get back on their feet when they do have that kind of fall, as is inevitable in any capitalist economy.

Obscurity said:

An interesting point that I must make. Right wingers bitch and moan about adverse speech on campuses being denied. But not one of them will bitch and moan about our economists being educated in the capitalist way without ever being told to read anything about Marx who composed a stinging criticism of capitalism.

Richard wolff talks about that alot.

How they are indoctrinated and brainwashed and shielded from the battle of ideas to ferment perfect capitalist robots.

Click to expand...

The problem with economists' training is much worse than not covering Marx. It's lacking in all kinds of humanistic values, looking only at things like maximum profit. Robert Kennedy commented on this problem when only 'gross national product' had value:

Even if we act to erase material poverty, there is another greater task, it is to confront the poverty of satisfaction - purpose and dignity - that afflicts us all.

Too much and for too long, we seemed to have surrendered personal excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our Gross National Product, now, is over $800 billion dollars a year, but that Gross National Product - if we judge the United States of America by that - that Gross National Product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage.

It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for the people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl.

It counts napalm and counts nuclear warheads and armored cars for the police to fight the riots in our cities. It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.

Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials.

It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.

And it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans.

Click to expand...

Athanasius68 said:

This is where a flaw of socialism appears. They believe that a capitalist controls production. But he or she doesn't. In no rational economy could that be the case.
The consumers of goods and services control production. Their wants and desires determines how production is developed and shaped.

Click to expand...

Neither is true. What is true is that the owners control production, and their profits often depend on consumers choosing their production.

And the issues are a lot more complicated than that. For example, a consumer might want an unsafe, hugely polluting vehicle with guns mounted on it and no seat belts, but there are reasons for society to say that's not going to be for sale. For some reason, Republicans take perverse pride in fighting against any such restrictions and wanting all the harm allowing it would cause and call that 'freedom'.

Economics has a lot more issues than these things, from exploitation of suppliers (colonies used to have to supply raw materials for very little), exploitation of labor, exploitation of the environment, product safety (for the consumer and others), predatory practices, monopoly, corruption, and more.

It's easy to forget that economics, which would lead to a miserable situation for many, have some conflict with society's values that value of people - there's no economic argument, for example, perhaps for a lot of 'special education' that's done - writing those people off might be 'economically advantageous', but not humanely advantageous. Capitalism needs to be the servant to people, not the master.

braindrain said:

So how exactly do you draw the line between workers having more control and workers having to much control. And why exactly should the business owner who spent his life savings and endless hours be told how to run his company by some low skilled workers who are only three to collect a pay check and work as little as possible. And no I am not referring to all workers but there are plenty just like that.

Click to expand...

You're advocating that employers view their workers as expendable replaceable resources. What do you think it feels like to wake up every day and feel like an expendable replaceable resource? Isn't it better to see your employees as your partners?

I already gave you the example of Google allowing their employees to work on their own projects on Fridays to reduce alienation.

So when you said that workers who are happier are more productive and efficient in the long run you think that won't make the company more competitive. Do you know many companies whose workers become more productive and efficient but are less competitive. Are you sure you didn't just forget what you wrote.

The rest of my post was completly relevant and the fact that you can't address any of my points doesn't change that at all.

braindrain said:

And I hate to tell you this but the government passing laws that address child labor or swearshop conditions had nothing to do with socialism. And neither is Google allowing us engineers to work on a company project that interests them Marxism.

Perhaps the problem we are having here is you are using words you don't actually understand. Because the things you are calling socialism and Marxism are neither. Hard to have a conversation with someone who doesn't understand the basic terms of the discussion

Click to expand...

I don't think it's me who doesn't understand that definitions of capitalism, socialism and marxism. I think it's you who doesn't understand that we have aspects of all of these in our economy and society.

So yes, when Google allows its employees greater autonomy regarding what they create, that is an aspect of Marxism. When you have a police union, that's an aspect of Marxism. When the government bails out the big banks that's an aspect of socialism.

Moreover, whenever you have categories you'll have difficulty neatly fitting real-life examples in those categories. Is a tomato a fruit or a vegetable? Is China socialist or capitalist?

ataraxia said:

We may be thinking there is a perfect solution between economic growth vs happiness. Who guaranteed there was?

The more I see if the world, the more I realize it is not designed to be perfect. It is not designed for our happiness. It’s a fundamentally broken world. In fact, it seems to be designed exactly to frustrate human happiness at every turn.

For example, there are often competing, but equally legitimate ideals and considerations which are necessary for full human happiness and fulfillment, but which clash in a fundamentally irreconcilable way- like economic productivity and personal happiness, or spending time advancing your career vs spending time with your family, or marrying for love vs economic security, etc....

Even if you try and find a perfect solution, is often very temporary and precarious.

You can try to do the best you can to juggle such competing demands and ideals as cleverly as you can. There may be better or worse ways if you try. But expecting perfection may only create frustration and unhappiness. Don’t expect perfection. Just getting rid of that expectation, I think, can be hugely therapeutic. That was the Buddha’s insight.

Click to expand...

It depends on your concept of "happiness." The greeks had a concept of eudamonia. It was a more nuanced and realistic definition of happiness. Often we have a rather simplistic idea of happiness as some state of constant bliss and pleasure.

Velvet Elvis said:

This resembles one of those
"I'm not a racist...but...(insert totally racist thing).
"I'm not a feminist...but...(insert man-hating quote).
"I'm not a socialist...but...(insert pro-socialist quote).

Look...in the United States, employment is a contract between employer and employee. You do as we say, and we will pay you for it. That's just how it is. If you don't like it, then by all means...you have the freedom to be employed elsewhere.

Click to expand...

It doesn't work that way in the United States anymore. There are all kinds of laws about what an employer can and cannot do. The people collectively agreed to impose these laws on employers. In New York a father can now get paid paternal leave. Are you against that? Is that socialist or Marxist?

If you think I'm a socialist or Marxist, please point out how I fit that definition.

SonOfDaedalus said:

It depends on your concept of "happiness." The greeks had a concept of eudamonia. It was a more nuanced and realistic definition of happiness. Often we have a rather simplistic idea of happiness as some state of constant bliss and pleasure.

Click to expand...

Yes, very interesting video. I believe Nietzsche reached a similar insight, the idea of the centrality of pain, but from a different perspective. Great minds DO really seem to think alike!

But I think such ideas belong at the level of the individual. Nietzsche was, above all, a philosopher of the self, not a sociologist. He was an elitist (as were both Plato and Aristotle) who hated democracy, and looked down on the masses. But to create a fluorishing society, you can't think in such individualist terms.

On such sociological/political level, I like the writings of the British philosopher Isaiah Berlin a little better:

“True pluralism,... is much more tough-minded and intellectually bold: it rejects the view that all conflicts of values can be finally resolved by synthesis and that all desirable goals may be reconciled. It recognises that human nature generates values which, though equally sacred, equally ultimate, exclude one another, without there being any possibility of establishing an objective hierarchical relation among them. Moral conduct may therefore involve making agonising choices, without the help of universal criteria, between incompatible but equally desirable values.”
― Isaiah Berlin, Russian Thinkers

“The notion of the perfect whole, the ultimate solution in which all good things coexist, seems to me not merely unobtainable--that is a truism--but conceptually incoherent. ......Many among the great goods cannot live together. That is a conceptual truth. We are doomed to choose, and every choice may entail an irreparable loss.”
― Isaiah Berlin, The Proper Study of Mankind

“The central values by which most men have lived, in a great many lands at a great many times—these values, almost if not entirely universal, are not always harmonious with each other. Some are, some are not. Men have always craved for liberty, security, equality, happiness, justice, knowledge, and so on. But complete liberty is not compatible with complete equality—if men were wholly free, the wolves would be free to eat the sheep. Perfect equality means that human liberties must be restrained so that the ablest and the most gifted are not permitted to advance beyond those who would inevitably lose if there were competition. Security, and indeed freedoms, cannot be preserved if freedom to subvert them is permitted. Indeed, not everyone seeks security or peace, otherwise some would not have sought glory in battle or in dangerous sports.
Justice has always been a human ideal, but it is not fully compatible with mercy. Creative imagination and spontaneity, splendid in themselves, cannot be fully reconciled with the need for planning, organization, careful and responsible calculation. Knowledge, the pursuit of truth—the noblest of aims—cannot be fully reconciled with the happiness or the freedom that men desire, for even if I know that I have some incurable disease this will not make me happier or freer. I must always choose: between peace and excitement, or knowledge and blissful ignorance. And so on...
If these ultimate human values by which we live are to be pursued, then compromises, trade-offs, arrangements have to be made if the worst is not to happen. So much liberty for so much equality, so much individual self-expression for so much security, so much justice for so much compassion.”
― Isaiah Berlin

braindrain said:

And how much of an improvement is it if the company goes out of business due to those inefficient ideas. Capitalism has brought me people out of poverty then anything else in the history of mankind. You know what is truly alienating. Being a dirty or peasant waiting in line for bad because your economic system is horribly inefficient.

Marx cane up with a bunch of nonsense because he was trying to push his horrible ideals. Giving the average persom more wealth and luxuries they have ever had seems to me like a good way to create happiness. Do you have some evidence that says the peasants of the world were happier before capitalism. Because let's just say I have my doubts.

And you think a factory worker would actually like going to work because they get to rotate rather then work in a line. Would they also be happier in the bread line.
The truth is most people simply don't like having to go to work every day. They don't like being told what to do and don't like being free to do what ever they feel like doing.
But as long as the world doesn't have unlimited resources unfortunately that is simply not going to change.

Click to expand...

Companies go out of business even when the capitalist is running them. There is no reason why we should consider the capitalist system would create more profitable and better run businesses than one run by the workers themselves. Industrialisation was the cause of the greater wealth. Capitalism merely took that wealth and horded it into the hands of a small percentage of the elite wealthy. Your reference is to russia which like the capitalists took the wealth produced by the worker and horded it for the benefit of an elite ruling class. Russia was never a communist country.

You really have not understood the idea behind the alienation of the worker. Rotating shifts or simply loving going to work are not what it is about. The alienation comes from the knowledge that the profits created by the wealth produced are not distributed to those who actually create the wealth. The worker has no decision making ability or any empathy towards the product they create because it belongs to another.

Your wrong, most people are far more happier being productive than they would be being out of a job. What they do not like is the fact that they are being exploited for their labour. Nor is it a case of saying there is not unlimited resources. There are plenty of resources the problem is that the wealth created by those resources are horded by a few rather than distributed to the many. The problem will not change as long as we allow a small percentage of the population to amass the greater share of wealth.

braindrain said:

Well in that case why don't we just let all the workers make every single decision that effects a company. See u can do silly hyperbole too.

And you think no smart CEO or business owners have figured out your secret to success. Hmm very interesting. Wonder why no one is taking advantage of your great idea and dominating the market.


The fact you had to delete the vast majority of my post rather then deal with it is rather telling.

Click to expand...

You are wrong again. There are quite a few business around the world that have adopted the idea of the worker running the business, they are called coops. Here is a list of such coops.
List of worker cooperatives - Wikipedia
And a link to coops in america.
More U.S. businesses are becoming worker co-ops: Here’s why

Many businesses in the U.S. were founded as worker cooperatives. But a growing portion–as many as 40%–of co-ops in the U.S. are born out of traditional workplaces

Click to expand...

So you can see not only are you wrong about workers controlling business but it is only you engaging in hyperbole.

As well as not having any real understanding of marxism you also seem to lack any knowledge about capitalism if you think a ceo is smart. Adam smith who is considered the first to theorise about capitalism argued that capitalism works best with a small business frame. CEO"s are on the other hand run large corporations which vie to become monopolies that are anathema to capitalist philosophy.

ataraxia said:

We may be thinking there is a perfect solution between economic growth vs happiness. Who guaranteed there was?

The more I see if the world, the more I realize it is not designed to be perfect. It is not designed for our happiness. It’s a fundamentally broken world. In fact, it seems to be designed exactly to frustrate human happiness at every turn.

For example, there are often competing, but equally legitimate ideals and considerations which are necessary for full human happiness and fulfillment, but which clash in a fundamentally irreconcilable way- like economic productivity and personal happiness, or spending time advancing your career vs spending time with your family, or marrying for love vs economic security, etc....

Even if you try and find a perfect solution, is often very temporary and precarious.

You can try to do the best you can to juggle such competing demands and ideals as cleverly as you can. There may be better or worse ways if you try. But expecting perfection may only create frustration and unhappiness. Don’t expect perfection. Just getting rid of that expectation, I think, can be hugely therapeutic. That was the Buddha’s insight.

Click to expand...

What you are saying is something i come across a lot with americans. They simply do not understand the difference between religion and philosophy as you seem to be saying here. Because the expectations you talk about here is religion. A belief that gives an ideal solution to problems. A creation of some kind of utopia.

Philosophy on the other hand never reaches or even gives that kind of solution. Marx himself discussed the very need for problems to exist because it creates a healthy growing society. Because it is only through conflict that society will change and grow. the moment a society stops growing is the moment it becomes stagnant and begins its decline.

The biggest problem in discussing marx among many of the americans here is that they treat his words as if they were a religion. That we must take his words and follow them without thought or questioning them. As if he were a prophet and his views a religion. Unfortunately these very same americans will also create the most stupidest way of following marx's words and then congratulate themselves on proving marx is stupid.

Philosophy on the other hand is a thinking persons game. Never accept anything, always question. And understand marxist materialism in that even marx himself could only reflect about conditions in his time. His words are there only to be asked the question of whether they are still appropriate in todays modern world and not to be followed without question.

Athanasius68 said:

This is where a flaw of socialism appears. They believe that a capitalist controls production. But he or she doesn't. In no rational economy could that be the case.
The consumers of goods and services control production. Their wants and desires determines how production is developed and shaped.

Click to expand...

That is complete bull****. Supply and demand are tools to manipulate market forces.

Vaping has become the new perfect example of this . Who in their right mind would want to consume a product that kills you. While on the other hand we have good evidence of companies manipulating advertisement to appeal to young to take up vaping.

soylentgreen said:

Philosophy on the other hand never reaches or even gives that kind of solution. Marx himself discussed the very need for problems to exist because it creates a healthy growing society. Because it is only through conflict that society will change and grow. the moment a society stops growing is the moment it becomes stagnant and begins its decline.

Click to expand...

Marx simply applies Hegel's dialectic view of history to economics. For Hegel, his dialectic process of theses, anti-thesis, and synthesis was a recurring pattern in the development of society and economies. Basically, conflicts are created, resolved in a new society but then new conflicts arise. This goes on and on as society evolves. Like Hegel, he believed there was some final resolution. Hegel believed there was a point of total realization of human consciousness. Marx believed that this dialectic process would finally result in a classless and stateless communist society. The classless stateless society is a kind of utopia.

I think lots of philosophies offer solutions to the human problem of happiness. Stoicism is one example and so is hedonism. Marx also offers solutions.

soylentgreen said:

What you are saying is something i come across a lot with americans. They simply do not understand the difference between religion and philosophy as you seem to be saying here. Because the expectations you talk about here is religion. A belief that gives an ideal solution to problems. A creation of some kind of utopia.

Philosophy on the other hand never reaches or even gives that kind of solution. Marx himself discussed the very need for problems to exist because it creates a healthy growing society. Because it is only through conflict that society will change and grow. the moment a society stops growing is the moment it becomes stagnant and begins its decline.

The biggest problem in discussing marx among many of the americans here is that they treat his words as if they were a religion. That we must take his words and follow them without thought or questioning them. As if he were a prophet and his views a religion. Unfortunately these very same americans will also create the most stupidest way of following marx's words and then congratulate themselves on proving marx is stupid.

Philosophy on the other hand is a thinking persons game. Never accept anything, always question. And understand marxist materialism in that even marx himself could only reflect about conditions in his time. His words are there only to be asked the question of whether they are still appropriate in todays modern world and not to be followed without question.

Click to expand...

You may be generalizing too much about philosophy. There are many absolutist type philosophies out there. One of the criticisms of Marxism is how much he was sure that he had found the ideal solution to all of mankind‘s problems- it was a secular religion promising final salvation to humanity . In fact, he was so sure of his ideas that he saw himself as more of a scientist putting an end to political philosophy, much as Newton had put an end to natural philosophy. He was sure he had figured out the forces of history just like newtons laws and could predict exactly where they were heading.

It is impossible to understand Marx without understanding Hegel. Marx’s ideas, as he himself admitted, were heavily influenced by Hegel. Hegel, as you point out, strongly believed in the clash of opposing ideas. He called this the thesis and antithesis. But he also believed that all of these clashes had an ideal solution, the synthesis, allowing progression to the next level of advancement of human history. He saw humanity progressing through history towards am “absolute”, an ideal final solution where there was no more conflict- the end of history, where all tensions had been sorted out. There is even some evidence that he thought his quaint little 19th century Prussian state was that final synthesis. But he left that question, like many others, rather murky. There are some strong religious overtones to that kind of thinking, as there is some idea that humanity and progressing toward this “absolute” is progressing towards a sort of “god’s ideal” through its history.

Marx also believed in this sort of Hegelian dialectic, but claimed that he had turned it “upside down”- demystified it and made it materialistic and this worldly, and sought in Hegel’s “Absolute” the final communist utopia which he prophecies.

Whatever the case, there is this aspect to both Hegelian and Marx’s philosophy that ultimate solutions are to be had- a final “synthesis” to be achieved. It may take time, but if we just keep working and thinking hard enough, we will get there.

The idea that final easy answers are never, even in principle, possible, is a fairly more recently fashionable idea in Philosophy ( although like everything else, there were those among the ancient Greeks who had presciently foreshadowed this as well).

One of the reasons Marxism in practice led to such atrocities was because they, Like the religionists, felt confident that they knew they had the final answers, the final salvation of humanity. So what was a few million lives here in there if the eternal salvation of all humanity was at stake? It’s that sort of self-confidence and self righteousness that can lead to atrocities, whether the religion is otherworldly, or secular, like communism.

Jay59 said:

Marx was a landmark writer, one of the founders of the field of sociology. He had a unique way of looking at the world that gave new insight. I respect him as a thinker and pioneer in scholarship.

That said, he was reductive and simplistic. While his many criticisms of capitalism have some merit, they constitute an argument, not an examination. As an argument, they ignore both complications and implications, so he is not a good place to start. Adam Smith was no fan of capitalism, reputation not-with-standing, but he gives a more balanced view. On a social theory standpoint, Comte coined the term sociology and he is not a bad place to start. Also, Edward Spencer deserves a good look.

As an economist, Marx isn't. He isn't thorough, he isn't insightful, he isn't objective, he isn't very good. Stick with the social observations and skip this part.

Click to expand...

Marx simply takes Hegel's view of history as a dialectic process and applies it to capitalism and industrialization. Where Hegel saw conflicts between consciousness and reality, Marx saw these conflicts embodied in the conflicts between the capitalist and the workers.

What I find interesting is that if Marx followed Hegel, he should have predicted that socialist societies would fail as part of the dialectic process. In Hegel's view when some society is created its opposite (anti-thesis) appears until there is synthesis. Then another anti-thesis appears. It's always a bit of a pendulum.

When we look at what happened with socialism we see socialism as a reaction to the horrors of capitalism. So pure-capitalism is the thesis and communism is the anti-thesis. What we end up with is a synthesis after the communist revolution. Of course, the synthesis creates new sets of problems and the pendulum swings back in the other direction. What we have today are mixed economies and this constant conflict between capitalist and socialist perspective and continual formation of new syntheses between these views.

ataraxia said:

One of the reasons Marxism in practice led to such atrocities was because they, Like the religionists, felt confident that they knew they had the final answers, the final salvation of humanity. So what was a few million lives here in there if the eternal salvation of all humanity was at stake? It’s that sort of self-confidence and self righteousness that can lead to atrocities, whether the religion is otherworldly, or secular, like communism.

Click to expand...

People sometimes ask why Hegel or Marx led to such atrocities and it all depends on how you interpret them. They both believe that society evolves through conflict. They point to the French Revolution as an example of this sort of evolution by conflict. So, it's easy to interpret their ideas as meaning that it was only part of the natural process that violent conflict should occur and it was in fact a necessary process towards our movement to the ideal society.

But one could also interpret these conflicts as political and intellectual debates and old ideas being destroyed by analysis.

I'm not that familiar with Hegel and Marx. Maybe you have some insight into what they believed the role of violence was in the dialectic process.

braindrain said:

And in what economic system so you think work won't be alienating. Do you think in a socialist system everyone will simply love going to work.
Furthermore that or society focuses more on having stuff more then happiness is a a reflection of our society not of capitalism.

Click to expand...

Socialism and Communist governments have NEVER existed, only totalitarian dictatorships that call themselves Socialist or Communist.

The economic system I grew up was the LEAST alienating, I think, the world has ever seen. We had controlled capitalism that kept business ownership close to the towns and people it served with a good underpinning of programs that were called the "Social Safety Net" NOT socialism because they were NOT. Owners worked in their office above the production or sales floor, they knew their employees AND their families and felt responsible for their well being. The employees/workers knew their boss and felt an obligation to help him stay in business and in so doing protected their jobs.

Then Reagan and voodoo economics stepped in, shipped jobs and capital overseas, deregulated banking and business and instead of local business that contributed to the local economy multinationals were created that didn't give a damn about the local economy and it's people, that at the end of the day instead of taking the daily deposits down to a local bank or s&l where they were reinvested in the local economy they were shipped back to "corporate" never to be seen again.

Irwin Corey said:

Then Reagan and voodoo economics stepped in, shipped jobs and capital overseas, deregulated banking and business and instead of local business that contributed to the local economy multinationals were created that didn't give a damn about the local economy and it's people, that at the end of the day instead of taking the daily deposits down to a local bank or s&l where they were reinvested in the local economy they were shipped back to "corporate" never to be seen again.

Click to expand...

Interesting. Nobody talks about the shift away from smaller local banks. When I was a kid I put my money in my neighborhood bank. Now it goes to some giant too big to fail bank that gambles with my money in the stock market instead of investing it in my local community.

SonOfDaedalus said:

Interesting. Nobody talks about the shift away from smaller local banks. When I was a kid I put my money in my neighborhood bank. Now it goes to some giant too big to fail bank that gambles with my money in the stock market instead of investing it in my local community.

Click to expand...

It was a huge shift, that should never have happened.

Irwin Corey said:

It was a huge shift, that should never have happened.

Click to expand...

In a sense, this move from neighborhood banks to giant Commercial/Investment banks has caused a kind of alienation where your money and savings become increasingly disconnected (alienated) from the needs of your community.

SonOfDaedalus said:

Marx simply takes Hegel's view of history as a dialectic process and applies it to capitalism and industrialization. Where Hegel saw conflicts between consciousness and reality, Marx saw these conflicts embodied in the conflicts between the capitalist and the workers.

What I find interesting is that if Marx followed Hegel, he should have predicted that socialist societies would fail as part of the dialectic process. In Hegel's view when some society is created its opposite (anti-thesis) appears until there is synthesis. Then another anti-thesis appears. It's always a bit of a pendulum.

When we look at what happened with socialism we see socialism as a reaction to the horrors of capitalism. So pure-capitalism is the thesis and communism is the anti-thesis. What we end up with is a synthesis after the communist revolution. Of course, the synthesis creates new sets of problems and the pendulum swings back in the other direction. What we have today are mixed economies and this constant conflict between capitalist and socialist perspective and continual formation of new syntheses between these views.

Click to expand...

That's the methodology, though it's hardly simple. Marx has to be reductive and simplistic to apply it at all.

While he may have shown the horrors of capitalism, he overstated the case. He also failed to investigate the potential horrors of socialism. History has shown that to be a bigger problem than with capitalism. As I said, Marx was good at sociology, but not economics.

SonOfDaedalus said:

People sometimes ask why Hegel or Marx led to such atrocities and it all depends on how you interpret them. They both believe that society evolves through conflict. They point to the French Revolution as an example of this sort of evolution by conflict. So, it's easy to interpret their ideas as meaning that it was only part of the natural process that violent conflict should occur and it was in fact a necessary process towards our movement to the ideal society.

But one could also interpret these conflicts as political and intellectual debates and old ideas being destroyed by analysis.

I'm not that familiar with Hegel and Marx. Maybe you have some insight into what they believed the role of violence was in the dialectic process.

Click to expand...

Daedalus, it's not that ataraxia has a better understanding than you - they're just spouting crazy.

[Atraxia quote I deleted]

SonOfDaedalus said:

People sometimes ask why Hegel or Marx led to such atrocities and it all depends on how you interpret them. They both believe that society evolves through conflict. They point to the French Revolution as an example of this sort of evolution by conflict. So, it's easy to interpret their ideas as meaning that it was only part of the natural process that violent conflict should occur and it was in fact a necessary process towards our movement to the ideal society.

But one could also interpret these conflicts as political and intellectual debates and old ideas being destroyed by analysis.

I'm not that familiar with Hegel and Marx. Maybe you have some insight into what they believed the role of violence was in the dialectic process.

Click to expand...

I'd say it's simpler: it wasn't the economic system of communism that lead to reigns of terror, but rather the form of government. To break that down:

- Communism is the pipe dream situation that results when the alleged awesomeness of a socialist economy de facto abrogates the need for government and, in turn, government fades away.

- Socialism is a purely economic system. Most specifically, government ownership of the means of production.

- Robust/pure socialist economies inevitably stagger and fall. Some are still staggering. They can be responsible for famine and all sorts of other worries, but not the worst of the actions of states with socialist economies.

- The worst of socialism results from the kind of government, more specifically the kind of person who wants to lead that government, required to switch to a true socialist economy. (I do not count European countries as 'socialist' generally, because only some means of services/production are government owned, but not anywhere near all so). If government really is to take over the means of production - industry/agriculture/tech/etc - it must exercise irresistible force. Trouble is....the kind of person willing to do that is not the kind of person willing to settle down afterwards. So you end up with a socialist economy run by a totalitarian monarchy/oligarchy. That's where the worst happens.




I really am stumped as to how the communist idealists could not see how this will inevitably happen. Give someone the power to seize the means of production, and even IF - and it won't, but if - that results in a panacea of production, they still aren't ever going to step down voluntarily. Going to the far end of the spectrum in that direction will inevitably result in authoritarianism of some sort.

Mr Person said:

I really am stumped as to how the communist idealists could not see how this will inevitably happen. Give someone the power to seize the means of production, and even IF - and it won't, but if - that results in a panacea of production, they still aren't ever going to step down voluntarily. Going to the far end of the spectrum in that direction will inevitably result in authoritarianism of some sort.

Click to expand...

Marx did realize that moving towards a communist society involved the apparent loss of individual freedom. But Marx would insist that you don't really have individual freedom now. He would insist that the capitalist own and control everything and are even able to control your desires and beliefs by manipulating the system. This was more true when Marx was alive than it is today.

What freedom does a factory worker during the industrial revolution really have? Marx insisted that they have nothing to lose.

I think Marx didn't acknowledge that there was some freedom even in an oppressive industrial society. You could still start a business and achieve your dreams. It was much much harder then as compared to now but it still existed.

In a sense, Marx believed that most people were sort of under a kind of mind control by the capitalist who taught them that the way things were was the way they should be. People were programmed to believe in the oppressive class system. So they needed people like Marx to tell them what they really wanted. And those who opposed them needed to be forced or killed in a violent revolution.

In other words, if you're being worked to death in a coal mine, you have nothing to lose by giving up your "freedom" to the communist state.

SonOfDaedalus said:

I'm not a Marxist or a socialist. But some of Marx's criticism of capitalism and modern life are valid and worth considering.

Marx believed that capitalism leads to 4 kinds of alienation.

1. Alienation from your work

2. Alienation from the product of your work

3. Alienation from other workers (and people)

4. Alienation from yourself

Again, Marx has insightful criticisms but not so great solutions. Is there anyone here who hasn't experienced this alienation from their work and the product of their work?

Click to expand...

People are alienated because they live in a fallen world. People are more alienated today than in the past because they've abandoned God.

The abandonment of God has gone hand in hand with the rise of consumerist capitalism. Loss of faith leads to people to seek happiness in material things, and an abundance of material things leads people to lose their faith. Which causes which is a chicken and egg problem. In any case, Marx's reflections on sociology are of little value since he got the most important thing completely wrong (that he got economics completely wrong goes without saying).