It’s interesting how the majority of Karl Marx’s theories are a mixture of many other philosopher’s beliefs. It seems to be an advantageous way of developing a theory though because you can take only the parts of their ideas that appeal to you and leave the rest. Of course though, even when creating a philosophy this way, there are going to be debates and disagreements, but it’s also interesting how widespread Marx’s critiques are. Looking at it from a political perspective, there are disagreements on the left and the right side of the political spectrum.
When Karl Marx wrote his book, “Communist Manifesto” he states that all men are born free but that society has got to such a state that the majority of people are in chains. Marx thought that working men and women should create the conditions for their own existence, because everything of value in society results from human labor. He also says that Income tax should be graded to income, in that the more an individual earns, the more they should be paid and vise versa, the less you earn the less you get paid. I can see how some people would be for this, while others against; it all comes down to politics. But then he argues for the abolition of property and ownership of land and I don’t see which side would be for this. It seems like no matter who you are you are going to want to be able to own something of your own. Do you agree? It seems that Marx’s beliefs are giving the working class hope of a better life. In that the workers would have an intellectual who was on their side and who was fighting their cause. But if you are apart of the working class are you really going to want to have to say that you have worked hard yet own nothing? Personally, I don’t see which side of the political spectrum would fight for that.
I would say that another main criticism of Marx was that he undervalued non-economic forces. He seems that place such a great deal and emphasis of his beliefs in an “economic shell,” that he neglects the concern of non-economic issues. I think critiques of Marx would say that he failed to take into account patterns of culture and a country’s traditions. Is Karl Marx’s theory not all about the economy?
Allycia,
ReplyDeleteI do agree with you in that I don't see which side of the political spectrum would be for the abolition of property and ownership of land. It is also true that in most cases, people are going to want to be able to own something of their own, but this cannot be generalized since there are people, who in spite of available opportunities and offers dread the idea of ownership and responsibility.
“I would say that another main criticism of Marx was that he undervalued non-economic forces. He seems that place such a great deal and emphasis of his beliefs in an “economic shell,” that he neglects the concern of non-economic issues. I think critiques of Marx would say that he failed to take into account patterns of culture and a country’s traditions. Is Karl Marx’s theory not all about the economy?”
ReplyDeleteMarx seems to tell his ethical theories through economics, which is a social science that relies on the understanding of humans and how they will react. However, economics narrows down reactions to certain things, specifically how individuals and societies deal with money. Marx is a value creator, he empowers the working class by trying to separate the people from the distractions they have from seeing their injustice, so that they will revolt and create a classless society. This society, Marx believes, will act morally and there will be lesser injustice suffered by the people. So, he believes that economics will lead to a just society, kind of like how Plato believed his society would lead to a just society as well.
Allycia,
ReplyDeleteInteresting post! I agree with you about the private property point. I felt like it was a bold claim and I couldn’t see how it would solve the problem of alienated labor either. You make the point that workers would want to own something of our own after all the work that is put in at work. I completely agree with that. Private property is necessary for even workers to show something for all their work, especially because they will not have the product that they made. Though Marx’s analysis of alienated labor as a result of capital logic is correct as well, in that we are alienated from multiple things because of capitalist logic but his solution does not seem to solve the problems listed. Also, when it comes to politics, you are correct that neither side would agree that we should eliminate private property, because that would cause further, more complex issues for workers without anything to own of their own. So, I agree with you on that point as well.
Lastly, your point about the non economic issues is a good point. I think the influence of non economic issues on economic issues is a very important connection ( I think this is what you were arguing at the end). As Marx does present us with a theory that is grounded in the economics of a society, it is hard to make such an argument with taking the non economic issues into consideration. Non economic issues greatly impact economic issues- that might even be why eliminating private property would not work because there are many deeper economic issues to be considered.