Posted by Stevo on October 23, 19104 at 01:22:35:
Hey Marxists and others who are also confounded by Marx's ideas,
As I have studied Marxist thought, I have been bothered by Marx's theory of historical development (dialectical materialism), which I believe is the cornerstone of his philosophy. Well, for one, it is undoubtably a theory of historical determination, which I cannot believe in (and since his writing has been proven untrue by history). But the bigger problem I have with Marx is his blatant inconsistency regarding his historical theory and the action and motivation of individuals.
For example, in the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels continually speak of the proletariat revolution in future terms, as if it is definately going to happen. Moreover, they often cite that this revolution is "inevitable", because of the processes of history. This, however, begs the question that should have been asked by the intellectuals so many years ago: why did Marx command in the end of the Manifesto: "WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE"? Why did he write in the Communist Manifesto, which was written more plainly than his other works so the uneducated proletariat could understand it? Why does Marxism still exist primarily as an ideology?
If Marxism were true in any way, there would be no reason to encourage the revolution, because it would have happened in the right time of historical development. There would have been no reason for Marx to go beyond a scientific, non-normative investigation of the driving force of history and the way it is leading. But, without question, he went far beyond that, moralizing all the way. Why did he inject his individual motives into the scenario, when he is arguing that history, not the ideas of individuals, pushes life in a specific direction?
I believe there are only a few possibilities for this blatant inconsistency. First, he was an idiot and didn't really understand his own theories. I am no Marxist. In fact, I love markets and civil society. But even I recognize Marx's genius, although I believe it was Machiavellian genius. The ideas of idiots rarely incite the murder of hundreds of thousands and cause the premature deaths of a hundred million more in span of sixty or so years. Furthermore, he was right about some things, such as the idea that markets are the most efficient way to build capital, and his other theories, such as the theory of labor alienation, were very detailed and brilliantly defended.
The second reason for this contradiction might be that he did not really believe his own historicism, and really did believe that human ideas, not some social force, drives the direction of mankind. But, at the same time, he might have thought socialism and universal brotherhood were desirable, and made an elaborate theory of history to convince the idiots who were to ingest his ideas and follow his commands, as if they were devine, that there revolution was inevitable. It would be an encouragement to the poor if they were to know, without, that there would be some kind of universal equality; that they would emerge from their destitute state and overthrow the system of injustice.
This would certainly explain why he made Marxism a type of moral critique of capitalism, and why did not stay with a simple examination of history and economics. He might truly have believed capitalism causes labor alientation and, therefore, should be replaced by socialism. To me, it seems quite likely that Marx's desires provoked him to design a false theory.
The final possible reason for Marx's inconsistency is a more insidious one, and it might hurt people's feelings. That is, Marxism was purely an expression of Marx and Engels' will to power. Friedrich Nieztsche defined the will to power as a kind of urge to dominate and compel others to act according to your will, and Nietzsche thought the will to power was the primary instinct in humanity. For all those who see Marx as the philosopher who embodied the idea of justice and equality, this would be a slap in the face. But it certainly might be the case that Marx knew all along what his ideas would lead to, but he expressed them and encouraged an uprising to demonstrate his ability to influence the people of the world. He might have wanted to demonstrate his superiority over others, by using his intellect and ideas to incite violent revolutions all across the world.
Of course, I cannot say I am not biased against Marx. I have seen the devastating effect of Marxism in China and in Eastern Europe, and my mother's family was severely persecuted in Hungary by the Communists. But I am pretty sure Marx did not believe his own historicism. If he did, there might be no Marxism left today.