Flare Sci-Fi Forums: Did he really say that?

This is topic Did he really say that? in forum The Flameboard at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/11/31.html

Posted by Baloo (Member # 5) on :

There is only one way to kill capitalism -- by taxes, taxes, and more taxes.
-- Karl Marx

If so, he was smarter than I thought!

--Baloo

-------------
HANDLE WITH EXTREME CARE:
This Product Contains Minute Electrically Charged Particles Moving at Velocities in Excess of Five Hundred Million Miles Per Hour.

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

I think he also said something to the effect of whatever he is, he's not a Marxist.

------------------
http://frankg.dgne.com/
Vortex: "It just don't pack the punch it used to..."
Swindle: "Yeah, because we're out of energy, dummy."

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Political views aside, Marx was a rather brilliant economist. Most people connect him with The Communist Manifesto rather than Das Kapital.

------------------
"The record of my unspeakable crimes, in previous lives, in previous times, indelibly stains the pages of history."
--
They Might Be Giants

Posted by Curry Monster (Member # 12) on :

What my esteemed friend Mr Sizer said *L*.

------------------
I drink therefore I am.

-Descartes

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

Good economist-really really bad and really really wrong historian.

------------------
"That is the exploration that awaits you: Not mapping the stars and studying nebulae, but charting the unknown possiblities of existence." - Q, All Good Things...

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

I wouldn't say that. History and economics ARE linked, as Marx claimed. It's when you get into the future predictions that you run into some trouble.

Marx, for instance, never thought that capitalism would co-opt certain socialistic ideas, and through that union become stronger. The U.S. economy since WWII can attest to that. By doing so, capitalism was able to overcome the severe problems that plagued it during much of the 19th century.

I actually have one major complaint against Marx, but it's a rather technical one from a philosophic viewpoint, so I won't bore anyone with it. Unless they ask... *lol*

------------------
"The record of my unspeakable crimes, in previous lives, in previous times, indelibly stains the pages of history."
--
They Might Be Giants

Posted by DT (Member # 80) on :

Don't worry Simon, no one will ask.

------------------
Day, after day
I get angry and I will say
That the day, is in my sight
When I will bow, and say good night
-------
Violent Femmes

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Sadly true. But I seldom wait for people to ask anyway.

------------------
"The record of my unspeakable crimes, in previous lives, in previous times, indelibly stains the pages of history."
--
They Might Be Giants

Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :

Okay, I want to hear this.

------------------
"Some people call me the Space Cowboy. Yeah! Some call me the Gangster of Love. Some people call me Maurice. Whoo hoo! 'Cause I speak of the Pompatus of Love!" - Steve Miller Band's The Joker

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Ha HA!

Ok, it's actually simple, really. Marx based a large portion of his work on the theories of a German philospher by the name of Georg Hegel. Specifically, on Hegel's dialectic theory as applied to history. The dialectic is a theory of the interaction of ideas. For instance, let's say that I write something about starships and post it. Call this my thesis. As soon as I do this, someone will disagree, and come up with a counteridea, or an antithesis. Through the struggle between those, a third idea will be produced, a synthesis between those two. That synthesis is now a new thesis, which produces a new antithesis, and so on and so on.

For Marx, the dialectic perfectly described the course history takes. He called the process dialectic materialism. History as a constant struggle between the haves in a society and the have-nots.

So far, so good. You could argue that Marx was selling humanity short by the claim that all we cared about was having or not having, but history would seem to bear that claim out.

The problem sets in when Marx looks ahead to the ideal society. He sees history as having an ultimate goal, a point where the dialectic stops. He labels this ultimate society communism. This is where Marx loses me.

First of all, my own bias is towards individualism. Under communism this simply doesn't exist. The goals of the individual are irrelevant. This isn't to say that communism is an Orwellian state. Exactly the opposite. Communism envisions the death of the state. Society will have progressed beyond the point of needing a controlling body.

Back to my earlier argument. Marx makes the mistake of assuming that the dialectic will stop. After the fall of the state, and all people being made equal economically, he sees the end of history. But that is not the only way we find to judge people. A society may no longer value money, but it will find other things to value. To use Star Trek as an example, the Federation is a society where materialism is no longer valued, but other things still are.

Basically, Marx underestimates the human desire for competition.

------------------
"The record of my unspeakable crimes, in previous lives, in previous times, indelibly stains the pages of history."
--
They Might Be Giants

Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :

I'll be darned! I actually understood that! Yeah me! Thanks for the explanation, Sol System.