Future? What Future?

Last week I wrote a post about the Eastern philosophical foundations of defeatism. The comment thread over at The Fugee Blog evolved into an interesting discussion about peoples' favorite philosophers. Unfortunately the thread vanished into the abyss of Blogspot when our new Fugee template was installed.

One comment stood out in my mind and I've been thinking about it this week. Someone wrote that Karl Marx would be the philosopher of the 21st century, and that they were excited about the future of Marxism. I immediately thought to myself...how could anyone hope for the triumph of Marxism during the 21st century after all the oppression, carnage and war Karl's ideas caused during the last century. Granted, capitalism killed a fair share of people too, but Marxist ideas spawned some of the most horrible mass murderers of the 21st century--Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot to name a few.

I'm not saying Marx directly intended for his theories to be translated into genocidial social engineering, but hell, there is no way of enforcing his program as listed in the Communist Manifesto without resorting to brutal oppression and totalitarianism.

 

I thought Marx was cool when I read his shit in my political theory classes in college. Then I realized that his whole goal is to highten the antagonistic relationships in society (not resolve them) and create an unnatural, unrealistic society governed by a "dictatorship of the proletariat".

I might be a lefty, but I ain't no statist.

(image from Bureaucrash)

Comments

[velid]

I think it is helpful to distinguish between the analytical and the prescriptive sides of Marx. I think there is a lot to learn from the former, while the latter clearly does not stand the test of time. In fact, his prescriptions were so vague that I still think holding him responsible from the tremenous crimes of Stalin or Mao is a bit unfair.

To follow all of the ideas of any philosopher be it Marx, Nietzsche, Locke, Derrida, or whoever is not philosphical but religious. They are better viewed as a source of ideas and perspectives you can use in developing your own philosphical repetoire and vision.

I personally like Hobbes a lot in part because he makes me laugh: his definition of humor as the pleasure we get at comparing ourselves to others and finding them wanting -- what superb misanthropy. He is like a philosphical Eeyore.

I like Nietzche for his perspectivism and his hyperbole: "Why am I so clever"; "Why do I write such great books." How can you not laugh; but nonetheless there is an element of truth to it.

[comandante agi]

Just to clarify, I agree with the analytic aspects of Marx's philosophy (dialectical materialism, economic determinism, etc.), I just don't agree with his proposed solution. You are right to clarify that difference.

However, if one were to enact his solution, the only way to achieve this would be through brute oppression.

[reverend quitter]

may i suggest the vinyl solution?

[velid]

Agi--you are as usual right on target about the statist aspects of Marx--the vinyl solution may be all that is left for marx-ism.

[comandante agi]

How about the Italian solution?

[Sam]

The Communist Manifesto was a pretty much a pamphlet commissioned by the "Communist League" in 1847. I read it as nothing but a polemic to rally troops. Marx's real philosophic and revolutionary skills come out in his other works. His insight into the nature of capital still stand.

It is also necessary to understand that Marx understood that historical changes require changes in how we approach capital and our political world.

I think that Harry Cleaver's book "Reading Capital Politically" is wonderful way of approaching Marx's work. Cleaver, in the spirit of a true commie, has it available for free:
http://www.eco.utexas.edu/Homepages/Faculty/Cleaver/357krcp.html

It seems like a cliché to dismiss Marx's work because one associates it with the horrors of Stalinism, Maoism, and other pathological political movements. There is something to be said about looking at the root causes of these movements but that doesn't diminish Marx's critique of capital and his overall goal, to give individuals more control over their own lives and labor.