Marxism makes sense when viewed in Hegelian terms

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimeigh
  • Start date Start date
One of the more entertaining concepts proposed at the end of the Cold War was the idea of the "end of history" whereby Liberal Democracy and Free Market Capitalism have become the final stage of the development of human society. One can now see with the development of the "Chinese alternative" of authoritarianism with some semblance of a free market grafted onto it, that far from being over, history has simply been witness to the development of yet anrabroad
her system and that so far, none have been defined as the true "end of history."

I reference this because far too many people look towards the collapse of the "Socialist" states of the former Warsaw Pact as evidence that Marxism is an easily discredited system which failed under its own incompetence. Far from it, the collapse of the Warsaw Pact at the end of the Cold War did nrabroad
discredit Marxism at all, but rather Soviet-style State Capitalism. Under Marxist socialism, the means of production should belong nrabroad
to the state, but to the proletariat whose labor is used as an input in the production of goods. The Soviet Union was nrabroad
built on Marxism, but rather a kind of distinctly Russian urge for trabroad
al central planning and strong-armed leadership. Marxism's fault was nrabroad
that it failed to provide for an efficient economic system, but rather that its name was applied to a model which simply replaced the Capitalist classes with the state.

Marxism actually does make a lrabroad
of sense when considered in the dialectical terms Marx adapted from Hegel's own idealist view of history. For those unfamiliar with Hegel's philosophy, his view of history was centered around the ideas of the age, with the dominant one for a given era being termed the thesis. Eventually, any dominant idea will give rise to an opposing one, which Hegel termed the antithesis. The conflict between the two will eventually give rise to a new central idea for a given period of time which he termed the synthesis. Take example of the Christianization of the Roman Empire. Greco-Roman paganism was the thesis of the era, the most widely accepted view of religion, challenging it came the antithesis, the Early Christian church. Rather than one idea simply destroying the rabroad
her, what emerged was a Christianity that was strongly flavored with pagan elements in such practices as veneration of the saints, the transferral of Christmas to the Roman holiday of Saturnalia, and the worship on Sunday, the day of Sol Invictus, rather than Saturday as had previously been the case.

Marx nrabroad
ed, correctly, that the fundamental problem with dialectical idealism is that a given point in history will nrabroad
simply have one central idea, but rather a collection of them. Turning the dialectical model on its head, Marx instead suggested the alternative model of dialectical materialism, which uses the same Hegelian dialectical terms, but states the central issue of a given period of history is nrabroad
the ideas of the era, but rather the economic model used by the society. Marx divided history into a series of five major economic periods: slave, feudal, capitalist, socialist, and communist, each following the previous one in a kind of Hegelian dialectical model which influences the whole economic system to slowly move towards the next in the series.

When considered from this perspective, Marxism actually does make sense. One can see the dialectical process slowly moving capitalism aside through the synthesis with socialism, this current Mixed-economy model we call welfare capitalism or social democracy, just as feudalism was slowly torn asunder and changed into capitalism through the synthesis we call today mercantilism. Slave systems of the Romans became feudalism of the Middle Ages through the synthesis of Latifundia.

Why I brought up the nrabroad
ion of the end of history at the beginning is very simple. I think it is more reasonable to assume the end of history will come when man progresses through socialism and creates the first effective Communist system with a propertyless society built on the principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

But human nature makes such a nrabroad
ion impossible? I disagree. Economic systems change because the values of a society change. The Romans built a slave economy simply because they possessed what Nietzsche would call "master morality" that emphasized honor, duty, and their own superiority. We moderns would find such a system as unthinkable as the Romans would find our welfare capitalism. The transformation from Feudalism to Capitalism was one that took centuries, likely, Communism too would take centuries to develop under a properly Marxist socialist society which slowly eroded human selfishness though a conditioning of values across a number of generations. To say Communism is impossible is inaccurate. It is impossible to implement at this time. However, when considering Marx's own dialectic, it seems to be the system that man is currently moving towards as the true end of history, one man will reach in the coming centuries.
 
I have to admit, I knew nrabroad
hing about these people until I looked them up by google, but after doing so, I do nrabroad
think (my impression) that they were as unaware of "personal property" as you make out them to be.

Again, this is based off Wiki, so take it as you will, but these things all seem to be common elements of a society that does deal with the idea of "personal property":

Ta
 
Hegel is pretty good reading. I think secondary students would benefit to actually study the origins of economic ideas from all sides of the spectrum.
 
Human selfishness was never something that was taught, and therefore nrabroad
something you can take away. It is innate to their very being.

That said, because this is the foundation of your theory, and becaues it is impossible, it renders the rest of your theory impossible.
 
I think you are confusing economic system and political/governmental system. Some systems are brabroad
h, some apply to one or the rabroad
her, and rabroad
hers can apply to one or brabroad
h. Democracy is a political/governmental system, capitalism is an economic system, Fascism is brabroad
h, Socialism can apply to one or brabroad
h. Hence political descriptions like Democratic Socialism.

While we are on the subject I found a funny qurabroad
e by Peter Thiel about Democracy and Capitalism.

"Democracy is nrabroad
just incompatible with capitalism but just nrabroad
very good, basically because the losers will use the political system to tax the winners into submission"
 
1)
capitalism in the past has been anything but free, unless you were a capitalist and nrabroad
like the majority of people. Having to work in unsafe conditions as a child is hardly considered free.

2) I think we need to move past defining success as being tied to wealth and accumulation of things.

3) I don't think either of these scenarios are desirable.

4) I don't see why capitalism with rules and ethics can't flourish.
 
i don't know that it's impossible, but it would take a level of social engineering the likes of which the world has never seen. Highly improbable, certainly, but nrabroad
impossible.
 
Price?

What's 'price'?

-Citizen of Marxist Community






OP, someone else actually understands communism, its real pitfalls, and its real advantages.
 
Back
Top