I’ve just read through “wages, labor, and capital” by Marx. It was the basis for his treatise on capital, Das Kapital.
I always thought that marxism was too complicated to be described as the doctrine that capitalism would destroy itself through overproduction but based on my reading, that is exactly what it said.
So in all simplicity the theory of marxism is just a theory of the demise of capitalism based on the firm’s propensity to overproduce. It also is a theory of the impoverishment of the laborer through labor market competition.
Also I developed a hypothesis on how to spot marx’s use of the dialectical reasoning: When marx makes an ironic comment or makes jokes about capitalism he is actually also employing hegelian logic -taking an idea and seeing if it has at least some contradictory or ironic element to it. (For instance, money is the measure of value but money’s value is based on labor itself -ironic. Private property rights are rights to inequality over otherwise equal humans. ETC.).
So for those debating marxists at least you know what they think first.
Actually it is a little more complicated then that. First you should start with a basic understanding of Hegel. David Gordon covers him in his ‘History of Political Philosophy’
Oh, well my hegelianism may be off (I’m looking into the link you provided ) but I think that on economics, if the essay “wages, labor, and capital” contain the essence of marxism then marxism must be about overproduction especially since his young ideas were equal to his old ones.
It’s always nice to offer Marxist’s a pro-capitalist version of a possible decline of capitalism in the middle of one of their arguments against you; they won’t know whether to hug you or yell at you more.
Download: Scribd HTML(you’ll need to register to download the PDf)
That is certainly a minority opinion, what makes you say that about Marx?
In regards to Hegel, it would take 1 or 2 “Hegel for dummies” type books to really get the gist of him. He is that much of b***h to just get an introduction on, as there are so many different interpretations on the dude. I know there are a couple books that deal with his relation to Marx.
yes some say that hegel was pursuing metaphysics while others say that hegel was simply extending the ideas of kant. But I thought that hegel was doing both, extending kant towards metaphysics? Any comments on that?
Because Marx was always trying to find the handle on the inevitability of communism. I don’t mean to say that Marx didn’t came to better systemize his thoughts. I’ll write down what I read in Kolakowski later tonight, he makes a convincing argument.
Well Hegel once said ‘Nobody understands me’ which is awfully true. He has such a convoluted writing system. You do have to have an understanding of Hegel to understand Marx, maybe an understanding Feurerbach.
I’ve seen it proposed that Marx came up with historical materialism partly in reaction to Stirner, as a sort middle-of-the-road position due to the untenability of his more idealist roots (but at the same time, trying to save some sense of humanism). Really, Marx was in a self-contradicting position between the nihilism inherent in a purely historical view and the inherently prescriptive thinking of a revolutionary. He wants to say that communism is an inevitable future stage of history while being prescriptive at the same time. Maybe this is a clash between two Marxes. Historical materialism should constrain the marxist from making any clear-cut prescription whatsoever, while communism the political ideology is essentially an ethical creed with a platform.
The switch due to Stirner is no empty proposition, I don’t know how true it is, but it seems at least somewhat reasonable if you look at the time line and the place and composition of “The German Ideology” in the history of Marx. I don’t know how self contradictory Marx was though, I mean SOMETHING would have to activate his view on history. He was certainly a moralist of sorts though. If Ianyone wishes to, I’ll go more in detail with more clarity, I don’t have the time at the moment though. There is also the bitch of a task in seperating the term Marxian and Marxist.
This isn’t really true. Marx was actually a pretty good reporter early on. When he was young he even noticed that the state had preferences of its own that were contradictory to the interests of the capitalist class. Somewhere along the way he developed the ability to let his theory overcome what he was seeing with his own eyes.
The following is from Kolakowski and I’m paraphrasing the 10 points which sustained Marx’s thought throughout his life.
Eschatology derived from Hegelianism except Marx places Man instead of MInd as the force that comes to understand the external world
Reconciliation between Man and the world, himself and others.
Alienation is the consequence of the division of labor
Alienation means the subjugation of man by his own works which have assume independent things
Alienation is not cured by thinking about it but removing its causes
The transcendence of alienation is another name for communism.
Communism does not deprive man of individuality. On the contrary the powers of an individual can only flourish when he regards them as social forces, valuable and effective within a human community and not in isolation.
Communism is not an ideal in opposition to the real world. It is not something that can be invented and put into practice at any time in history.
The proletariat is more then the instrument of being impersonal historical process. It fulfills its destiny by being conscious of its destiny.
Communism is the final transformation of all spheres of life and human consciousness.
You heard about some lost manuscripts in Gary North’s lecture? I didn’t know he had lost manuscripts. I mean much of his stuff wasn’t published in his lifetime.