When I told my friend I was studying Marx in my ethics
class, she said “Ew why he is considered a philosopher? I think he’s just
psycbo.” This attitude towards Marx is fairly common in America, since we have
such a strong love for the capitalist system. It seems odd to me that we
devoutly protect the system that, according to Marx, is an incredibly
manipulative, oppressive, and immoral system that alienates the worker from the
product of his labor, from himself, and from the other workers. Marx is famous for
his influential role in Communism, specifically the communist systems in Russia
and China. These two countries’ attempts at communism were massive failures, so
we tend to wave off Marx as some lunatic. Honestly, I was pretty convinced of
the idiocy of communism, but after actually reading his ideas about it I have a
much more favorable view of the egalitarian system. His beliefs about
alienation seem especially true. The example about the iPhone was quite
revealing, since the workers were receiving a mere fraction of the actual
price. This seems incredibly unfair, and while I am not ready to rise up
against the bourgeoisie in the great proletariat revolution, I do think that
there should not be such a great disparity between labor wages and the price of
the product of their labor. I am a bit confused about the true state of nature
though. Would the ideal economic system allow the laborer to make his one
specific product, have entire ownership of it, and then sell it? This seems
incredibly inefficient. The way communism was implemented in Russia was
(obviously) inefficient as well. I think the fundamental flaw in Marxist
thought is not realizing how greedy people can be. We are wired for survival,
and although throughout history we have formed mutually beneficial societies, a
system of equality and sharing has never been successful – and I don’t think
that will change anytime soon.
Throughout human history man has tried to identify that one concept that epitomizes that humanity. That one fundamental trait is Greed. The pursuit of fulfillment has been that sole constant in human relations. Whether calling it the hole at the center of our being as Sartre does or the lustful part of our souls as Plato, the reason mankind has survived the ages is our desire to achieve. This achievement is a personal quest each of us holds within us and part of that quest is the recognition of our achievements. It is this fundamental part of the human experience why Marxism cannot be applied to humanity. Our innate selfishness prevents any higher interaction or cooperation on the scale and intensity that Marx envisioned. To enact Marxist philosophy, then the very nature of humanity would have to be changed. This is something that I do not perceive happening in the future as the “soul” of humanity has remained constant for the last several million years.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Harper, I would argue that there is no way to really know the "true" nature of humanity - is it capitalist greed, or do we just all think that because we are so deep into capitalism that it has become impossible for us to conceive of anything different? I think small-scale examples of communal living happen all the time (the roommate example for instance, tribal cultures, even giving to charity has elements of communal living). In fact, I would argue that due to the communal nature of areas of the world considered "behind" the West in terms of progress the original "'soul' of humanity" could very well be communal in nature, and therefore it has been dramatically altered by the capitalist philosophy that so dominates our society.
ReplyDeleteCommunism fails whenever it is tested not because people are greedy, but because we are all different. "To each according to his needs, and from each to his abilities" is fine and good, but some people will want more, some people will give from themselves what they need to survive. The difference between people is what makes it necessary for incentive to be what drives the world, a goal for which some can or cannot self motivate themselves to achieve.
ReplyDeleteAlso during communistic states the leaders end up becoming the new bourgeoisie while everyone else that is not in power ends up the laborers. without the ideal that one could possibly rise up in stature to gain more than their allotted sum the workers become lazy and have no motivation to work and strive. The lack of competition also causes a halt in technological advancement because if a supplier does not need to one up their competition they have no need to improve their wares in an attempt to increase demand for their product. therefore communism ultimately is harmful for the whole.
ReplyDelete