Why Marx Was Right by Terry Eagleton

[Arising_uk]

.


You may interject the term aspersions if you like.


I was reminiscing of 'Castio Dispersionio.'

Then you should use the phrase and not the English as it can cause confusion as we're not mind-readers but readers.

So, lemmie get this straight; No one here has read Marx's "Das Kapital."

ALL of us here has read the wiki:Marx's "Das Kapital"

No, get it straight, some of us have read large chunks of Das Kapital but I doubt anyone has read it all as its vast, others are starting to read some of it and many have read The Communist Manifesto. You have read none. I've never read the wiki entry as whilst useful by and large wiki is not that a reliable a source compared to actually reading what ever is being discussed and making ones mind up for themselves.

And that makes you better than me how?

Get off your little ego pole. Its not about being "better" its about being on a philosophy forum and making statements about things one hasn't read.

I hope you get something out of wiki on this.

Its a shallow educational tool.

For me, Organized Labor and the evidence of democracy are my yardsticks.

Case closed.

And yet for a long time Liberal Democracy opposed unionism. But I agree with your sentiments as both unions and capital need to be constrained in a civil society.

Seriously, hope you do well. Try reading Marx again - perhaps you will find something positive about it.

I did, its called Historical Materialism and an analysis of Industrial Capitalism at the time, even tho his economics appears in error. Maybe if you tried reading it you'd understand your cultural box a little better.

Try going to Cuba. Immerse yourself in Marx. And good luck to you.[/size]

The usual refrain of the Yank. What? One of the best health care and education systems for its poor out of all the Latin countries. Despite being under embargo for fifty years by Yanks with the same opinions as you, i.e. holding opinions about things they've not read.

Since you know nothing about Marx I'll tell you that he claimed he wasn't one. Given his idea of Historical Materialism the failed experiments were obvious and the communism you talk about is that of Lenin's with Stalins obscenities. Mao's still appears to be going strong but if Marx was right then not for long. Still, I guess you've not read either of them as well but will have an opinion nevertheless.

I'm sooooooo fucking tired of people quoting & misquoting Marx.

How would you know?

It's become like the Bible - The lord uses the good ones & the bad ones use the lord.

Its nothing like the Bible but then you'd not know and I doubt you've read this either. Although i am surprised here as you claim your position as a religion so you could learn from both of them in this respect.

Marx is meaningless.

Only to those who don't read. He may have been in error but meaningless if hardly the word as evidenced by the millions who have been influenced by his words.

Why any member would attempt to use ANY written word as a symbol of status over ANY other member here defies the exercise of philosophy and reflectively, is quite shallow.

Says the numbnuts who quotes wiki all day long. You are on a PHILOSOPHY forum bill, the very least we could expect is for a person to have read about the thing they are commenting upon. Your 'exercise' of philosophy is just an exercise in massaging Bill Wiltracks ego and needs and has little relationship to the practice of philosophising.

Having said that I hope you cling to the view from your imposed tower. Don't change...[/size]

But we read and as such are more likely to have to change our lofty views due to encountering the actual thoughts of others. Try it some time.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



Look, EVERY time you touch the keyboard THAT is an ego.


WE ARE ALL HERE MASSAGING OUR EGOS.


This is ego.



.................................................................................



As far as Karl Marx and ANY of his books...I don't need to read them.



Me; I; Bill Wiltrack;...I don't need to read them. Perhaps you do. And you will be better for it.



That's fine. I'm not attempting to put you down for it.


I will NEVER read a book by Karl Mark in this lifetime.


I don't have the time nor the interest.


I'm a philosopher. I have devoted my life to the pursuit of the exercise of what I consider philosophy to be.


I work for understanding in relation to that.


I don't have much time left.



I have NO time to read a book by the author Karl Mark.





..................................................................................................................................



I risk my life in my pursuit of philosophy, the way I understand it to be. I have devoted my life to philosophy and the pursuit of truth.


Again, someday I hope you and ALL other members read a book by Karl Marx. If that is what you wish. And I am sure you will be better for it.






.

[richardtod]

So Terry, I agree. Marks was right about quite a few things and wrong on a few others. Unfortunately he did not give an instruction book on how to implement Communism and just like the many interpretations of the Bible, so with the implementation of Communism.

To date, neither Christ's nor Marx's philosophies have ever been achieved and where it has been tried we have, in the worst circumstances. ended with murder and slaughter. The Crusades, the Inquisition, Stalin and Mao.

Does that mean we should stop trying?

[Arising_uk]

Does that mean we should stop trying?

For me the answer is yes. Mainly because if Marx's Historical Materialism is correct then attempts to implement communism before science, technology and capitalism effectively solves the problem of scarce and unevenly distributed resources will only delay its onset. Not that I think we shouldn't still address the issues of democracy, govt and where to draw lines with respect to unfettered markets.

[spike]

Marx was right about the fact that workers should organize and demand better treated from their employers. But overall, he was not right about economics. He thought that economics could reach a state of equilibrium, where everything is balanced and fair, which is not only undesirable but impossible.

Marx wanted to take the edge and contradictions out of economic life. But without those elements we would not have an economic life that is sustainable. And that is something Marx didn't understand or address, the problem of economic sustainability. The proof is in the economic system his ideology spawned, communism, which came to an end because it killed off everything that is essential, like competition and profit, for achieving economic sustainability.

[mtmynd1]

I view Karl Marx as a visionary of sorts in as much as he could see the inevitability of the capitalist economic system. Observing our world today, we can easily see capitalism outgrowing it's ability to sustain the world population. I've often said our system is akin to the game of Monopoly where all the money ends up in the hands of one winner thereby ending the game... a game incidentally, which was created in the 20th Century.

The 20th was a huge success story for the U.S. and it's allies. Inventions were creating jobs aplenty from railroads to airplanes, bigger and better seafaring craft, the automobile industry changed our way of life, skyscrapers popped up in large cities made so from all the newness spawned in that age, let's not forget the electricity revolution which created new and better ways to live in that 20th Century... the list is grand and it made democracy and capitalism cohorts in a success story that far too many rely upon as an age, or at least an ideal, that is hard to let go of here in this early 21st Century.

But any system devised by man has it's shortcomings and capitalism is one of those principles that will eventually perish. Marx had foreseen the shortcomings where capitalism will eventually need to be replaced with, as he saw it, "socialism"... a system if successfully operated would aid in sustaining the populace for which it stands. Marx did not advocate a complete and total revolution but rather a evolution where capitalism (an economic theory he knew to be legitimate), will evolve into Socialism and from that system, the eventuality of Socialism being replace by Communism, i.e. no longer using money as we know it.

Our little 20th Century history has distorted and maimed a decent, forward looking theory by Marx and corrupted it through idiocy like the Russian revolution, Cuba's abject failure, China system ruined by the ego-driven madness of Mao... non of these economic systems were ever what they claimed to be. And initially each of them, (and any others you may like to lump in with them!), not one, EVER practiced true Capitalism, what Marx had known to be one of the 'three stepping stones' in man's economic evolution.

So despite what our history books say, "Communism" has never been practiced in the world and "Socialism" has yet to be fully implemented. But yet, as this thread clearly shows, far too many individuals believe that Socialism and more importantly, Communism has been practiced and became a dismal failure thereby making the system a folly. The folly is the misinterpretation of the systems.

[spike]

I think people who believe Marxism is an alternative for capitalism are naive or delusional, or both. John Nicholas Gray, a once professor at London School of Economics, is one of them.

Even thought I agree with Bill Wiltrack and his anti-Marxism I don't like his tactics and the crap he puts in his posts. Nevertheless, he is a shit disturber and an agitator, which in itself is good because Marxism detests that. Marxism and its ideology in the long run shuts down decent and demands a 'closed society' in order that people tow the party line. Under Marxism people like Bill would be muzzled, sent to work camps or completely eliminated.

Marxism spawns a culture of stagnation, deception, corruption and manipulation. Such a system inevitably results in the killing off of diversity and feedback loops, and in so doing destroys any legitimacy and vitality it once had. Furthermore, it can not renew are sustain itself without diversity or feedback loops, hence its collapse and ending up on the scrapheap of History.

Edward O. Wilson, the author of "Consilience", knew that Marx got something wrong when he believed that humans were destined to work in collectives. Wilson said Marx got the species wrong. It is aunts that work best in collectives, not humans. And if Marx had known anything about evolution he would have know that Communism would eventually die off, as it eventually did, because it denies and doesn't work with humanity's true nature.

[mtmynd1]

And if Marx had known anything about evolution he would have know that Communism would eventually die off, as it eventually did, because it denies and doesn't work with humanity's true nature.

Spike... you're jumping the proverbial gun with your reply here. Communism has never been accomplished, period. This is not because it failed but rather it is because of the evolution of economic systems. "Socialism" is born from "Capitalism" and "Communism" evolves from "Socialism". "Capitalism" has to be implemented before it's eventual demise (as all things do). After this demise "Socialism" steps in ... and etc., etc... The countries that attempted to jump right in before using capitalism certainly failed with 'communism' and some struggled with 'socialism'. This evolutionary economic system has to be benign and people friendly. When citizens are forced to adapt to any system, that force threatens success.