Eight claims of Marx that will surprise you

 

Eight claims of Marx that will surprise you


What kind of private property did they oppose - property with the capitalist bourgeoisie as a result and concentrated property. Marx and Engels accused capitalism of alienating man from his 'self-acquired property'.

1.4k
VIEWS

Critics of Marx are trying to prove the great socialist thinkers wrong. They do so by taking questions that have not been explained in detail by Marx. However, the correct answers to the questions and false accusations can be found by delving deeper into Marx. Here we will answer the questions and accusations raised by Marx against his writings.


Marx has been interpreted in many ways. Many of these explanations are suitable. But some, at the instigation of the anti-communist crowd, try to dismiss Marx by weaving a net of words. They deride Marx as an 'immature economic determinist' or attack him harshly as too far-sighted in his analysis and predictions.


Marx was not always right. Who is always right? But either Marx was right or he was made more supportable than people thought. This is why they are worth paying attention to.


The absurd argument that misrepresents them must be refuted by the reliable ideas of Marx or Marxism. Here are eight facts that refute the argument that Marx is wrong:


1. They generally did not reject capitalism. He was impressed by it. He argued that capitalism was the most productive system the world had ever seen. Marx and Engels wrote about this in the Communist Manifesto:


“During its class rule of less than a century, the bourgeoisie has created a more powerful and immense productive force than all previous generations combined. The conquest of natural forces, the use of machinery in production, the use of chemistry in agriculture and industry, steam-powered transport, railroads, the electric telegraph, the opening of entire continents for cultivation, the making of rivers suitable for navigation, the astonishing rise in the standard of living and standards of the entire population—all these A question can be asked: Was such a productive power lying in the arms of social labor even imagined in any previous century? – Communist Manifesto


2. Marx accurately predicted that capitalism would spur the globalization we call today. Capitalism predicted that a world market would be created and that different countries would become increasingly interdependent. This is what Marx and Engels predicted in the Communist Manifesto:


“By exploiting the world market, the bourgeoisie has universalized the production and consumption of all countries. Disappointingly for the reactionaries, this capitalism has uprooted the national base from under the yoke of industry. The branches of the old national industry have perished and are perishing day by day. … In place of the old local and national separation and self-reliance, there has been established the manifold, mutual relations and universal interdependence of all nations.” – Communist Manifesto

3. Old societies used to operate by preserving traditions and lifestyles. But on the contrary, capitalism develops by inventing new and alternative ways of production that affect our lives. Technologies change our lives at a rapid pace. Old products must make way for new products and the people who build them.


However, capitalists generally portray capitalism as a pure commodity. Although the specific changes it brings about are positive, it causes a lot of confusion. It can make people feel like they are living like an unwanted person because their values ​​and lifestyle no longer have a place in this world.


Also, for some, using new technologies and production methods in the pursuit of profit may yield unexpected results. (If Marx were alive today, he would undoubtedly say that climate change is the result of uncontrolled change. How aware he was of climate change can be seen from this one passage in his Communist Manifesto:


"The bourgeoisie cannot survive without a constant change in the means of production, and consequently without a revolutionary change in the relations of production as well as in all the relations of society. … The constant change of the system of production, the constant upheaval of all social relations, the perpetual uncertainty and instability, distinguish the capitalist era from all previous eras. In capitalism, all old and outdated relationships with prejudices and assumptions are destroyed. And all new relationships are old before they are established. That which is solid becomes airborne, that which is holy becomes corrupt, and in the end people are forced to take a serious look at the real conditions of their lives and relationships.” – Communist Manifesto

4. Powerful companies, the concentration of wealth and new methods of production, among other things, make it increasingly difficult for independent professionals and middle-class businessmen to maintain their status. They either retire the wrong way or work for a company that can put them out of business. In other words, Marx envisioned the 'walmartification' (serialization of production and distribution) of capitalist society. A paragraph written in the Communist Manifesto makes this clear:


“The lower strata of the middle class – petty traders, retail traders and moneylenders, mostly retired tradesmen, artisans and farmers – all gradually reach the level of the proletariat. Some therefore their small capital is not enough to start a modern industrial business and it cannot compete with the big capitalists. And for some reason, their professional skills are of no value as they come up with new ways of production." - Communist Manifesto

5. Marx did not demand the abolition of all property, rather he did not want a situation where large numbers of people had few material possessions. He was not an anti-materialist irrationalist. What kind of private property did he oppose - the property that is in large consequence with the capitalist bourgeoisie and the concentrated property. Marx and Engels accused capitalism of alienating man from his 'self-acquired property'. But its meaning or reality is different. The following paragraphs make it clear:


"The special character of communism is that it does not abolish property in general, but rather abolishes bare capitalist ownership. But the private ownership of the modern bourgeoisie is the last and most complete form of such a system of production and exploitation. which is based on class antagonism and exploitation of the majority by the minority.


In this sense, the summary of communist principles can be said in one sentence: the abolition of private property.


We Communists are often accused of wanting to usurp our own rights over our own labor-earned property. Which is the mainstay of all kinds of personal freedom, activity and self-reliance.


Earned by sweat earned by hard work, wealth created by own labor! Do you mean that small Kaligarh and small farmer's property was before the capitalist era? There is no need to liquidate such assets; The development of industry has already destroyed it and is doing so every day. – Communist Manifesto


६. Marx thought that human beings have a natural inclination/attachment to identify with the things they create or create. He called this the 'commodification' of labour. Which means that we put something of 'ownness' (or originality) into our work. When one feels "external" to something created by oneself and cannot be united or connected with it, it brings about "separation".


It can also be understood this way: you make an idol, and someone takes it from you, and never lets you touch and see the object again. Marx argues that workers occupy a comparable position in a 19th century capitalist factory. Marx wrote about this:


So what is the separation of labor?


First fact: To say that labor is external to the worker does not mean that it is not intrinsic to him. Therefore, when he is at work he does not affirm his identity, rather he denies himself, he does not feel satisfied but unhappy. He does not develop his physical and mental energy independently, rather he spoils his life and depresses his mind.


Therefore, the worker feels his identity only when he is out of work and feels his identity outside when he is at work. He feels at home when he is not working and cannot feel at home when he is working. Therefore, his work is not voluntary, it is compulsory, i.e. it is forced labor.” – Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844. Karl Marx


7. Marx wanted mankind to be liberated from the tyranny of division of labor and long working days. His argument was that the division of labor and long-term engagement in the same job prevented a particular individual from developing different abilities and skills. If we become only one type of work servant (labourer), other dimensions of our personality cannot develop. He wrote an aspirational paragraph in his youth to give it an outline:


“As soon as the division of labor takes place, each individual has a particular, one-field activity from which he is forced, and from which he cannot escape. A man is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman or a critical critic and he must remain so. If this does not happen, it loses its means of livelihood.


While in a communist society, no one is assigned a specific, one-field activity, everyone can work in any field and branch as they wish. Society monitors normal production and makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another thing tomorrow. In this society I hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, watch the animals in the evening, and review after dinner, because I will have a mind without being a hunter, a fisherman, a shepherd or a critic.― Karl Marx, The German Ideology


8. Marx was not an immature economic determinist. How a person thinks and acts matters. After the death of Marx, Engels J. In a letter to Bloch, he emphasizes the importance of economics, but also tries to make it clear that Marx and him were misinterpreted on the basis of that letter, and that it was partly our fault. (Note carefully the parenthetical “Marxist” in the paragraph below)


We should have emphasized the main principle more than those of our opponents, who refuted it. And, due to other factors, we didn't always have the time, space and opportunity to participate in the conversation. But when it came to presenting a section of history, i.e. to put it into practice, it was a different matter and there was no room for error.


Sometimes young people tend to overemphasize the financial aspect of necessity, of which both Marx and I are partly to blame. We had to concentrate on the points rejected by our opponents regarding our basic principles and we did not have enough time, space or opportunity to shed the necessary light on other aspects of interaction. But when a part of history had to be presented, i.e. it had to be put to practical use, it was a completely different situation. Unfortunately, people often think that as soon as they learn a new theory, they can apply it, and that application is often incorrect. And I cannot discount the recent neo-Marxists as exempt from such a view, because the most appalling filth has been produced from this place (the neo-Marxist quarter).

–  Engels to J. Bloch in Konigsberg



Translation and credit: Mitchell Abulfia, professor of philosophy at Manhattan Cause, from Jacobin.com.