Critique Of Karl Marx
Here is my latest writing for philosophy class. Good stuff.
Karl Marx was indeed one of the greatest revolutionary writers not only of the 19th century but of all time; however, for all his success with his polemic and idealistic political writings, his merits solely as a philosopher leave much to be wanted for. There exist two main points that, in my mind, illustrate Marx's philosophic short comings and both are interrelated, viz. his apparent abandonment of Hegel’s dialectic and the fact that Marxist Communism was come upon not by dialectic of deduction from valid premises, but rather the premises seemingly were formed in order to support an already arrived upon conclusion.
Let us take up the former of the two critiques first. Marx, being a disciple of G. W. Hegel, was profoundly influenced by Hegel’s dialectic and adopted it to support his own materialistic dialectical interpretation of history. Marx’s theory of history is quite worthy and very much on the mark, however the veracity of the theory here is not in question. What I do question is the fact that in using his own materialistic dialectic in proving that communism is imminent, he abandons the idea of synthesis as found in Hegel’s dialectic. It is hard to see how Marx, whose own theories are not too unlike Hegel’s, could have found satisfaction is an extreme, namely communism, rather than some synthesis of communism and capitalism. Quite contrary to the very essence of dialectic, Marx argues that communism is indeed the next stage in history but does not take into account that communism itself is an antithetical conception itself, that it will invariably, according to dialectic, be synthesized with the status quo conception of bourgeois society, or the thesis.
The above conclusion is the outcome of what I believe to me Marx’s other philosophical fault; rather than engaging in a philosophic pursuit of truth, which Marx would admittedly later put into practical effect, and then deducing from the premises of the truths found the conclusion, namely communism, Marx starts from his desired end and works his way backwards. This, taken literally, is not wholly fair to the eminent man but, in whole, contains much truth I believe. Marx was clearly disgruntled with the conditions of the common man of his time, disgusted with the abhorrent conditions and lifestyle that the proletariat was forced to live. Marx’s passions and desires were quite worthy and admirable as he wished to diminish the suffering of all and ensure that every man, woman, and child was provided with at the very least subsistent living. However, it was these passions which exclude him from being considered an excellent philosopher and promote him to being an excellent social reformer. His doctrines were inspired by both hate and love: hate for the bourgeois and love for humanity in general; and, as such, his philosophy was, I believe, somewhat crippled from the start due to Marx’s stray from objectivity.
All this is not to say, however, that Marx was a failure philosophically. Karl Marx will always be regarded first as a political theorist/social reformer/revolutionary and then secondly a philosopher. Marxism, taken from a solely philosophic viewpoint, does suffer from lack of objectivity and due to that fact was a somewhat "forced" or artificial philosophy. This does not detract from Marxism being practically beneficial though in the least. In the end, as Marx in my mind ought to have envisioned it, Marxism did indeed play the role of the antithesis, thus moving western society into much more liberal socialistic principles. Pure communism, while I would not charge it with being impossible or impractical, would be definitely hard to achieve due to its extreme nature. Too much is dependent upon the molding and forming of exquisite human character for a communistic society to survive, for it would only take a small percentage of "defects", those whom had not been properly raised to regard the common good as valuable etc., to dissolve a good community. Marx did not realize this fact that extremes, of all types, are very difficult, if not sometimes impossible, to maintain in reality. Thus, he strayed from the teachings of Hegel and the philosophy of dialectic.
These are the faults I accredit to Karl Marx philosophically, but I do, all in all, sympathize with his general sentiments. He was not, as some would like us to believe, an evil man; in fact, the very contrary is true. For all his intellectual errors, his value of both a philosopher and, primarily, a social revolutionary are of great importance today and will be in history as his doctrines has been taken into a synthesis resulting in modern day liberalism in the United States and socialist theory in Europe. It is true that other socialists such as Owen, Fourier, and St. Simon had a role in it all as well, but it is Marx and his compatriot Friedrich Engels that are rightly accredited with bringing socialism into play in human society. For this, I believe, Marx ought to be regarded as both an intellectually gifted and, more so, a morally admirable man.
Karl Marx was indeed one of the greatest revolutionary writers not only of the 19th century but of all time; however, for all his success with his polemic and idealistic political writings, his merits solely as a philosopher leave much to be wanted for. There exist two main points that, in my mind, illustrate Marx's philosophic short comings and both are interrelated, viz. his apparent abandonment of Hegel’s dialectic and the fact that Marxist Communism was come upon not by dialectic of deduction from valid premises, but rather the premises seemingly were formed in order to support an already arrived upon conclusion.
Let us take up the former of the two critiques first. Marx, being a disciple of G. W. Hegel, was profoundly influenced by Hegel’s dialectic and adopted it to support his own materialistic dialectical interpretation of history. Marx’s theory of history is quite worthy and very much on the mark, however the veracity of the theory here is not in question. What I do question is the fact that in using his own materialistic dialectic in proving that communism is imminent, he abandons the idea of synthesis as found in Hegel’s dialectic. It is hard to see how Marx, whose own theories are not too unlike Hegel’s, could have found satisfaction is an extreme, namely communism, rather than some synthesis of communism and capitalism. Quite contrary to the very essence of dialectic, Marx argues that communism is indeed the next stage in history but does not take into account that communism itself is an antithetical conception itself, that it will invariably, according to dialectic, be synthesized with the status quo conception of bourgeois society, or the thesis.
The above conclusion is the outcome of what I believe to me Marx’s other philosophical fault; rather than engaging in a philosophic pursuit of truth, which Marx would admittedly later put into practical effect, and then deducing from the premises of the truths found the conclusion, namely communism, Marx starts from his desired end and works his way backwards. This, taken literally, is not wholly fair to the eminent man but, in whole, contains much truth I believe. Marx was clearly disgruntled with the conditions of the common man of his time, disgusted with the abhorrent conditions and lifestyle that the proletariat was forced to live. Marx’s passions and desires were quite worthy and admirable as he wished to diminish the suffering of all and ensure that every man, woman, and child was provided with at the very least subsistent living. However, it was these passions which exclude him from being considered an excellent philosopher and promote him to being an excellent social reformer. His doctrines were inspired by both hate and love: hate for the bourgeois and love for humanity in general; and, as such, his philosophy was, I believe, somewhat crippled from the start due to Marx’s stray from objectivity.
All this is not to say, however, that Marx was a failure philosophically. Karl Marx will always be regarded first as a political theorist/social reformer/revolutionary and then secondly a philosopher. Marxism, taken from a solely philosophic viewpoint, does suffer from lack of objectivity and due to that fact was a somewhat "forced" or artificial philosophy. This does not detract from Marxism being practically beneficial though in the least. In the end, as Marx in my mind ought to have envisioned it, Marxism did indeed play the role of the antithesis, thus moving western society into much more liberal socialistic principles. Pure communism, while I would not charge it with being impossible or impractical, would be definitely hard to achieve due to its extreme nature. Too much is dependent upon the molding and forming of exquisite human character for a communistic society to survive, for it would only take a small percentage of "defects", those whom had not been properly raised to regard the common good as valuable etc., to dissolve a good community. Marx did not realize this fact that extremes, of all types, are very difficult, if not sometimes impossible, to maintain in reality. Thus, he strayed from the teachings of Hegel and the philosophy of dialectic.
These are the faults I accredit to Karl Marx philosophically, but I do, all in all, sympathize with his general sentiments. He was not, as some would like us to believe, an evil man; in fact, the very contrary is true. For all his intellectual errors, his value of both a philosopher and, primarily, a social revolutionary are of great importance today and will be in history as his doctrines has been taken into a synthesis resulting in modern day liberalism in the United States and socialist theory in Europe. It is true that other socialists such as Owen, Fourier, and St. Simon had a role in it all as well, but it is Marx and his compatriot Friedrich Engels that are rightly accredited with bringing socialism into play in human society. For this, I believe, Marx ought to be regarded as both an intellectually gifted and, more so, a morally admirable man.