What was the general message behind Marx’s idealism and why was it so popular?
In: 0
Collective ownership of production. Everyone working for collective benefits. No oligarchy, no rich class. Just equal contributions and benefits for all.
If it could ever actually be implemented it would be great. Of course, there are too many people who work against collective benefits that it’s basically a utopian fantasy.
The general message was that a benevolent state could distribute wealth equally among the entire population, not just a wealthy few, and this would improve the lives of everyone. This idea contrasts with the state of the world throughout history, when a small ruling class enjoys wealth while most other toil to support their lifestyle.
Marx was a materialist, which is the opposite of an idealist.
An easy way to understand the contrast might be by using Plato and Aristotle as examples.
Plato argued that understanding the ideal forms led to understanding the things in the world. That is, the world of ideas was the primary reality and the material world a reflection of that.
Aristotle argued that understanding the world led to understanding the forms. This was a more empirical approach to things and is closer to what materialists do (a materialist would argue that there are no forms, though, and that material things are the primary reality and that our ideas are merely drawn from them).
Marx’s project was called dialectical materialism. So, on top of being a materialist (he was a pretty hardcore empiricist, his works were full of data to support his arguments), he used Hegel’s dialectical approach.
The best example I think think of for Hegelian dialectics that’s easy to understand is the movie The Dark Crystal. In it, the Skeksis are the antagonists sucking life out of the world to extend their lives (not unlike Marx’s capitalists). Opposite of the Skeksis are the Mystics, who are at one with nature, but don’t really do anything. The preservation of these two separate halves is killing the planet, and the solution isn’t actually to choose one side over the other. It’s to bring the Skeksis and Mystics together and combine them into the original species they were both split from (I think they were called Urskeksis?). Their combination forms an entirely new race that is wiser, smarter, and more powerful than just adding them together. This solution is what saves the world.
Dialectics is basically that. You have a thesis on one hand, an antithesis on the other hand, and they come into conflict. Rather than one annihilating the other and “winning”, they create a synthesis which is greater than simply combining them. It’s something new.
Marx takes this dialectical approach with regard to economics. He observes the thesis of capitalism and the antithesis of socialism. From there he suggests communism as the solution.
That’s the central theme of Marx’s works, though there is a lot more to it than just that. It’s so popular because his analysis of capitalism is accurate and his predictions on where it’s going have also been accurate.
Like all philosophical works, the problems emerge in his proposed solution and how to get there. You’ll find this same problem in any philosophical text. It’s much easier to analyze and critique a system then to solve it. That being said, Marx’s proposed solutions were fairly solid, and certainly better than most you find in philosophy. This is why he’s considered one of the great philosophers of history.
Source: Am a philosopher.
The crux of Marxism is that capitalism has solved scarcity (essentially, poverty), and that any resultant scarcity isn’t a reflection of material constraints (such as tradeoffs between risk and return, or the choice between various types of products, which might arguably not be ‘material’), but rather the decision of a small group of people to artificially restrict the quantity produced, thereby increasing the price of the product. Additionally, the excess/supernormal profits from these artificially inflated prices would be retained by the owners of the industrial equipment rather than shared with workers (because that would incentivise more workers to work for you, increasing the amount you produce, decreasing the price you can sell for).
If you accept this message, then you have a putative explanation for why the world is divided into rich and poor (the “natural” result of conflict between workers and owners, with the owners seemingly winning), and prescriptions on what to do about it (eliminate ownership as a concept, thereby eliminating this conflict).
It’s appealing for all the usual reasons. It’s pretty simplistic, so you can preach to a large number of people quickly, especially those who aren’t likely to critically analyse what you’re preaching. Its very simplistic explanations lead to very straightforward prescriptions, abolish property through any means necessary. It creates an outgroup an easily identifiable villain to channel your frustrations towards, your bosses and their bosses. It taps into pre-existing animosity, because the people who dislike their bosses are more susceptible to being converted.
Latest Answers