Utimately Karl Marx believed...

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Didn't soft power not only translate into diplomatic solutions, political pressure etc. but also into cultural power? I think that Marx recognized capitalism's use of hard power through the legal institutions present and upheld by the capitalist states in question - for example, through the control of national military, police, etc. who ensured the interests of the capitalist system.All the same, Marx recognized the mix of what was the 'lies' of the capitalists, shrouding the pure, egalitarian features of the people in what would be propaganda of individual greed. That is, the culture as present shrouded the people in believing that they were egoistic. Like how religion shrouded the true, sane minds of the people. He recognized soft power as a fundamental part of how his idea of capitalism worked. But at the same time, he didn't think of soft power as the tipping factor in introducing communism. I don't believe in weapons as a primary means to potentially make a functioning communist society. Marx does (Although he also believe society must economically - not culturally - develop to a point where capitalism is unstable in order to have the workers revolt)

I might get the terms mixed up. Please explain to me if I am wrong.

... Oh god, I bet I'll get a dogpile of corrections.

Your chief problem is understanding Marx as having held the development from capitalism to socialism as being a moral undertaking. Marxism makes no claim to morality. Marxists do, but the ideology does not. Marx did not say that socialism must come about when capitalism is so unstable as to make it possible for the workers to revolt, he said it would necessarily be forced to transition because the laws of social dynamics would cause significant numbers of workers to realize their collective power and react against their circumstances. He presents it not as a moral statement, but as an observation of inevitable events as dictated through the Dialectic. Whether the evolution to socialism was morally right or not was independent from the fact that it was going to happen, and this was how and why it would happen.

This is what Marx meant when he said he was not a Marxist. Marx the man clearly thought that associative production was morally right, but Marxism is very clearly amoral on the issue.

 

[aelf]

Didn't soft power not only translate into diplomatic solutions, political pressure etc. but also into cultural power? I think that Marx recognized capitalism's use of hard power through the legal institutions present and upheld by the capitalist states in question - for example, through the control of national military, police, etc. who ensured the interests of the capitalist system. All the same, Marx recognized the mix of what was the 'lies' of the capitalists, shrouding the pure, egalitarian features of the people in what would be propaganda of individual greed. That is, the culture as present shrouded the people in believing that they were egoistic. Like how religion shrouded the true, sane minds of the people. He recognized soft power as a fundamental part of how his idea of capitalism worked. But at the same time, he didn't think of soft power as the tipping factor in introducing communism. I don't believe in weapons as a primary means to potentially make a functioning communist society. Marx does (Although he also believe society must economically - not culturally - develop to a point where capitalism is unstable in order to have the workers revolt)

I might get the terms mixed up. Please explain to me if I am wrong.

... Oh god, I bet I'll get a dogpile of corrections.

I don't think there's anything that specifically points to the use of weapons as being necessary, but Marx did say that between equal rights force decides. He held that capitalists are correct under the system to pursue profits and that the workers are also correct to demand the full share of the fruits of their labour as the productive force of society who are essentially physical beings. Hence, the contest must at some point be decided by force. This I think is the place of revolution. I also think that there is a lot of scope in the neo-liberal state to undercut democratic processes in making decisions that are held to be systemically necessary and of vital importance to the state (and its political and economic interests).

All the cultural stuff are dealt with by later Marxist thinkers such as the Frankfurt School and the neo-Marxists, which is quite beside the point of this thread, however.

 

[Angst]

Thanks both, it makes sense. I have taken both of your posts on me, even if it might not read as such in this post. I have a problem with semantics in English sometimes. I might also just still not understand the guy. So... Marx recognized soft power as a transitioning element, but not as the revolutionary fundament? It's just, well, I still don't see my claim refuted in that Marx acknowledged the "capitalist culture" as part of the problem, but not the fundamental thing that needed to change. He looked at the physical goods. I think a culture being changed is the fundament for any revolution, not what the economical circumstances are. I acknowledge the economical circumstances as a factor - the two are connected at most times - but for example, in North Africa today, the population has known for the length of the dictators' reign that they were being suppressed. The elderly population just didn't want to do anything about it. The young population grew up with a different mindset and revolted.

My point is, I recognize hard power, but I see the premise behind any revolution as will, idealism, etc. It's what premises for development that you value the most...

... I'm not sure I'm getting my point across? I might be talking nonsense to you. Its difficult to discuss fundamentals.

EDIT: I'm saying that I believe I understand Marx in Cheezy's post. I just disagree with him on what things to consider the most relevant when a structural development is happening. Marx is a determinist. I'm not.

 

[Dachs]

Marx is a determinist. I'm not.

I don't think Marx was a determinist, actually.

 

[Angst]

Not? Didn't he think things would follow a natural pattern to inevitably lead to the worker's state? I'm pretty sure it's commonly agreed that that was what he believed. And I am pretty sure it's the same as historical determinism.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Don't get so tense about what Dachs said.

 

[Dachs]

Not? Didn't he think things would follow a natural pattern to inevitably lead to the worker's state? I'm pretty sure it's commonly agreed that that was what he believed. And I am pretty sure it's the same as historical determinism.

Actually, I'm not sure that he did think it was inevitable. It's hard to square an argument of inevitability with something like

History is not like some individual person, which uses men to achieve its ends. History is nothing but the actions of men in pursuit of their ends.

In his Eighteenth Brumaire, he wrote that

Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living.

Humans' actions are informed by the past, not dictated by it...

 

[Hygro]

Don't get so tense about what Dachs said.

Was that a pun?

 

[aelf]

So... Marx recognized soft power as a transitioning element, but not as the revolutionary fundament?

I don't know what the answer to this is, TBH. If you're asking whether Marx thought revolution has to be forceful, if not violent, I'd say so. But there might be things he wrote that also suggest otherwise. I'm not as well acquainted with every work of his as I am with the general theory. If you're asking whether the transition to socialism and communism is gradual or quick and explosive, I'm can't really tell you either. The whole thing about dictatorship of the proletariat suggests that he thought conventional revolution would be the process of transition between capitalism and socialism, but presumably he thought that the one between socialism and communism would be gradual.

This is pretty much outside of my area of interest.

It's just, well, I still don't see my claim refuted in that Marx acknowledged the "capitalist culture" as part of the problem, but not the fundamental thing that needed to change. He looked at the physical goods. I think a culture being changed is the fundament for any revolution, not what the economical circumstances are. I acknowledge the economical circumstances as a factor - the two are connected at most times - but for example, in North Africa today, the population has known for the length of the dictators' reign that they were being suppressed. The elderly population just didn't want to do anything about it. The young population grew up with a different mindset and revolted.

What I said about culture being dealt with by later Marxist thinkers refers to precisely such a treatment of ideology. AFAIK, early Marxist thought adopted a base and superstructure approach of economic determinism - to put it simply, the prevailing system or relations of production determine the ideology and the culture of a society. Change the base and you change the superstructure, but you can't do it the other way round. I guess that's the most straightforward implication of materialism in dialectical thought.

It was later that Marxist thinkers started to look at the more complex integration of the superstructure with the economic base, which I think partly led to some currents of postmodern questioning of the whole premise of materialism altogether. Of course, there is a whole lot of debate on all this, with some 'postmoderns' verging on or re-adopting idealism and Marxists arguing against them and defending dialectical materialism while moving away from the original base and superstructure approach. Yeah, and unfortunately I don't have the time to study all of the debates in depth.

As for whether Marx was a determinist, it's also another debate. Some posit a dichotomy between a young Marx who was not and a mature Marx who was. Some question this dichotomy. Some, like Hygro, might point to later Aristotelian influences on Marx that seems to 'take him back' to a humanist outlook. So there is much that is not straightforward and simple in Marxism, despite what people like Alassius might have you believe.

 

[Hygro]

Humans' actions are informed by the past, not dictated by it...

That piece read to me like like he was being deterministic not in theory but in practice: that humans could do something different if they chose, but that barring the truly unexpected, they wouldn't since the past so strongly guides the future.


@Aelf, I'm pretty sure, but not at all certain because I really haven't read that much Marx, that his later works suggest that workers could get their short work days and spoils via political and non-violent means.

edit: just saw your edit. Yeah, good point there.

 

[Dachs]

That piece read to me like like he was being deterministic not in theory but in practice: that humans could do something different if they chose, but that barring the truly unexpected, they wouldn't since the past so strongly guides the future.

Perhaps I am transposing my own opinions onto his older quotes. Most of my experience with Marx is sideways anyway, through historiography texts.

 

[aelf]

This is what Marx meant when he said he was not a Marxist. Marx the man clearly thought that associative production was morally right, but Marxism is very clearly amoral on the issue.

Just read this again and have a thought. I thought that Marx said this in response to some radical Marxist clamouring for revolt and the bypassing democratic processes to win some concessions for workers at that time (I can't remember where), which is one piece of evidence that indicates that Marx himself was not in a hurry for a revolution and might have been open to more gradual political change. Maybe he just thought it wasn't time for revolution?

 

[GamezRule]

He probably believed that capitalism would ultimately reach a peak and a revolution would take place.

 

[Smellincoffee]

Just read this again and have a thought. I thought that Marx said this in response to some radical Marxist clamouring for revolt and the bypassing democratic processes to win some concessions for workers at that time (I can't remember where), which is one piece of evidence that indicates that Marx himself was not in a hurry for a revolution and might have been open to more gradual political change. Maybe he just thought it wasn't time for revolution?

IIRC, a group in France had taken to calling itself Young Marxists and gone and done something violent, and a reporter asked for Karl's opinion on them. My sociological theory professor used this as an example of people appropriating Marx's name for their actions even in his own lifetime (by way of criticizing Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and company).

 

[knez]

Karl Marx ultimately believed that a sort of aryan ubermensch will evolve (and its evolution will be a bloody one) and live in a sort of Plato style paradise.

He was a moron and not a very good economist.

 

[aelf]

IIRC, a group in France had taken to calling itself Young Marxists and gone and done something violent, and a reporter asked for Karl's opinion on them. My sociological theory professor used this as an example of people appropriating Marx's name for their actions even in his own lifetime (by way of criticizing Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and company).

Hmm, yeah, pretty much what I remember reading.

Karl Marx ultimately believed that a sort of aryan ubermensch will evolve (and its evolution will be a bloody one) and live in a sort of Plato style paradise.

Doesn't sound like you know very much about this subject.

He was a moron and not a very good economist.

Moron needs to be qualified, though I suspect this is somewhat beyond you. As for not a very good economist, maybe from a later perspective. But that's a bit like saying Newton was not a very good scientist, or something like that.

 

[civver_764]

But that's not what makes it slavery at all. What makes it slavery is that its coerced. Saying "Give me all your money, since we think you have too much, we're the majority, and we want all that" is a form of slavery. And that's what Marxism wants.

Brilliant summation of Das Kapital

 

[Ajidica]

Karl Marx ultimately believed that a sort of aryan ubermensch will evolve (and its evolution will be a bloody one) and live in a sort of Plato style paradise.

He was a moron and not a very good economist.

That sounds more like a bad misreading of Nietzsche.

Brilliant summation of Das Kapital

To be fair, he did keep me entertained by sharing the work of his labor for the greater glory of the proletariat, so perhaps he knows more then he is letting on.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Just read this again and have a thought. I thought that Marx said this in response to some radical Marxist clamouring for revolt and the bypassing democratic processes to win some concessions for workers at that time (I can't remember where), which is one piece of evidence that indicates that Marx himself was not in a hurry for a revolution and might have been open to more gradual political change. Maybe he just thought it wasn't time for revolution?

Perhaps I am imposing an assumption on a statement whose circumstances I did not understand.

Brilliant summation of Das Kapital

Not really a fair "comparison," since Capital is concerned with analyzing the Capitalist mode of production and associated epoch, and isn't really about communism or communist ideology at all.

/nitpick

 

[Hygro]

Karl Marx ultimately believed that a sort of aryan ubermensch will evolve (and its evolution will be a bloody one) and live in a sort of Plato style paradise.

He was a moron and not a very good economist.