The Ayn Rand thread got me thinking about this. One thing I've noticed in conversations about Rand is that Marx is never far around the corner. He's usually brought up as the writer on the opposite end of the spectrum, the other evil. But, I think Marx's example reveals something about how we react to writers and thinkers.
Many people, I think, jump the gun in linking him to the totalitarian regimes that came after him a totally as as they do. While that stuff is certainly there, so are very many things that have sprung up in liberal democratic societies and changed them for the better. I'm thinking of things like Labor Unions (as I said in the Ayn Rand thread, you can argue their current virtues all you want, but the simple fact is that Unions are at least partially responsible for the degree of economic freedom that you currently have), or to a far lesser extent the TVA. These are Marxist (or pseudo-Marxist) developments.
There is also the claim that he is against individual freedom, but one thing I found while reading him was that he holds individual freedom in very high regard. The basis of his attack on industrial capitalism was basically the people were becoming their jobs, they just had no time or energy to be free and happy people under the free market system of the day. His criticisms were and remain valid.
Where he runs into trouble, I think, is his unwillingness to compromise. His main flaw is that he is modeling himself after Rousseau, but he lacks Rousseau's insight and pragmatism. Marx wants the general will, and hopefully in his lifetime, while Rousseau (this is only apparent after one has read much of Rousseau's work besides The Social Contract) seems to present his theory of the general will as a thought experiment, just one step in his project to know freedom. Like most who came after Rousseau, Marx founds an 'ism,' an unyielding code that is unaware of its ability to inhibit freedom despite its intention just by that very aspect.
Why are we so eager to single Marx out as a boogeyman? He did have a hand in the Communist totalitarian governments that came after him, but he was not the sole cause of what those governments became. And while we who live in liberal democracies can claim opposition to his system, it cannot be denied that his influence had a hand changing our society for the better.
So, is he an author that should be rejected outright, or can we read him pragmatically?
Many people, I think, jump the gun in linking him to the totalitarian regimes that came after him a totally as as they do. While that stuff is certainly there, so are very many things that have sprung up in liberal democratic societies and changed them for the better. I'm thinking of things like Labor Unions (as I said in the Ayn Rand thread, you can argue their current virtues all you want, but the simple fact is that Unions are at least partially responsible for the degree of economic freedom that you currently have), or to a far lesser extent the TVA. These are Marxist (or pseudo-Marxist) developments.
There is also the claim that he is against individual freedom, but one thing I found while reading him was that he holds individual freedom in very high regard. The basis of his attack on industrial capitalism was basically the people were becoming their jobs, they just had no time or energy to be free and happy people under the free market system of the day. His criticisms were and remain valid.
Where he runs into trouble, I think, is his unwillingness to compromise. His main flaw is that he is modeling himself after Rousseau, but he lacks Rousseau's insight and pragmatism. Marx wants the general will, and hopefully in his lifetime, while Rousseau (this is only apparent after one has read much of Rousseau's work besides The Social Contract) seems to present his theory of the general will as a thought experiment, just one step in his project to know freedom. Like most who came after Rousseau, Marx founds an 'ism,' an unyielding code that is unaware of its ability to inhibit freedom despite its intention just by that very aspect.
Why are we so eager to single Marx out as a boogeyman? He did have a hand in the Communist totalitarian governments that came after him, but he was not the sole cause of what those governments became. And while we who live in liberal democracies can claim opposition to his system, it cannot be denied that his influence had a hand changing our society for the better.
So, is he an author that should be rejected outright, or can we read him pragmatically?
