{"id":2989,"date":"2022-02-02T16:07:29","date_gmt":"2022-02-02T16:07:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/gchristopherscruggs.com\/?p=2989"},"modified":"2022-02-03T14:49:33","modified_gmt":"2022-02-03T14:49:33","slug":"marx-1-background-and-assumptions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/gchristopherscruggs.com\/?p=2989","title":{"rendered":"Marx 1: Background and Assumptions"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"\/<\/a>As I began this week, I realized it is impossible to give a sympathetic review of the work of Karl Marx without first discussing Adam Smith and the industrial revolution. Modern economic theory began with the work of Adam Smith. Though today best remembered for his seminal work, \u201cWealth of Nations\u201d, in his own day Smith was primarily known as a moral philosopher. [1]<\/a> Skipping Wealth of Nations<\/em> in this series was a mistake, and the Adam Smith needs to be covered. I will not stop to do so at this point in time but will cover Smith as a political thinker before this series is over.<\/p>\n

Adam Smith occupies a position intellectually as a part of the Enlightenment. Subsequent to the work of Smith and Wealth of Nations<\/em>, what we would call classical free market economic theory developed. Particularly important for understanding Marx is the work of David Ricardo, who expanded the insights of Smith in the area of the theory of wages, profit and rents, to which Marx responds in his work, Das Capital<\/em>. [2]<\/a><\/p>\n

Without going into detail, the growth of classical free market economic theory paralleled the growth of industrialization in Europe. This, in turn, resulted in Marxist analysis in the development of two different groups of people:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. What is sometimes called the \u201cbourgeoisie,\u201d which were the owners of capital and what we today refer to as the \u201cmiddle class\u201d; and<\/li>\n
  2. What Marx called the \u201cproletariat,\u201d or the working class and lower classes, including the poor.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    By the mid-19th<\/sup> century, wealth, property ownership, and power in Europe had shifted from wealthy, feudal landowners, to a new class of individuals who had made their money in industry and commerce. This new power-base, made up of industrial entrepreneurs and the business class, had great wealth and disproportionate political and economic power. This shift in power partially accounts for the development a liberal democracy and also the development of what is sometimes called \u201claissez-faire capitalism.\u201d The theory of laissez-faire capitalism is and was that markets should be free to operate without interference. Although today there are few people who subscribe to an unregulated form of capitalism, in the 19 century it was popular.<\/p>\n

    The development of an industrial economic system created tremendous economic dislocation as families left traditional communities and society, and moved to cities and areas of industrial concentration. Often, these people lived in substandard conditions. In addition, because of the power was held in the hands of the capital owners, the working class had little control over their destiny. It is to be remembered that modern developments, such as labor unions, were a late 19th<\/sup>-century development and not part of the early industrial revolution. The same thing is true of governmental restrictions on business. The figure of Karl Marx and his thought cannot be understood without this background, for Marx reacted against the dislocation, poverty and suffering of the working class of his day to which he was extraordinarily sensitive.<\/p>\n

    We live in a somewhat similar time, in that the development of an \u201cInformation Society\u201d as opposed to an \u201cIndustrial Society\u201d has resulted in a new class of elite, the creators and owners of vast information businesses in the area of technology, electronic media, what is sometimes called the \u201ctech industry,\u201d and the like. This new class of elites has enormous economic and political power and exerts influence that has lessened the power of traditional industrial and commercial concerns and other entities, such as labor unions, that emerged as counter-balances to the power of the industrial and commercial businesses. During such times, it is easy for some people to lose confidence in institutions and in the fundamentals of their society. Even freedom can fall victim to the stress of the emergence of a new era. More sympathetically, there is always a lag as a free society develops protections for the common people as a new era emerges.<\/p>\n

    Brief Biography<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Karl Heinrich Marx (1818-1883) is, without question, the most important political philosopher of the 19th<\/sup> and 20th<\/sup>centuries. His works have been influential in philosophy, history, politics, government, and economics\u2014in every aspect of modern society. Even in the West, where capitalism sustained its leadership as an economic theory, Marx is exceedingly important, if for no other reason than his status as the primary intellectual source of Soviet and Chinese Communism and the attraction of his thought to intellectual and political elites.<\/p>\n

    Marx studied law and philosophy in Germany where he was born of Jewish\/Christian parents. In his youth, he appears to have been religious but under the influence of his teachers and friends became an atheist. Throughout his life, Marx aligned himself with political radicals, including founded the Communist Party. His was not an easy personality, and he often fell out with his allies in political and economic matters.<\/p>\n

    Despite family objections, he married Jenney von Westphalen who was of a middle-class family, to whom he remained loyal his entire life. Unfortunately, Marx was unable to maintain regular employment, working only intermittently. He was irresponsible in his spending habits, and the family suffered great poverty, resulting in the death of two of their children. He seems to have been unable to function effectively in ordinary life. It is a paradox that the champion of the working class was himself not a worker.<\/p>\n

    There\u2019s no question but what Marx\u2019s friendship with Frederick Engles, who both financially supported and acted as an advisor to him, was of great importance to Marx as a thinker and activist. His most popular works are the Communist Manifesto<\/em> and Das Capital<\/em> (1867-1883). The focus of these blogs will be on the Communist Manifesto<\/em>, but it is not possible to understand or appreciate Marx without reference to his other works.<\/p>\n

    Basic Philosophy<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Materialism<\/u>. Much has been made of the influence of Hegel upon the thought and work of Marx. During Marx\u2019s education in Germany, the dominating figure was George Frederick Hegel, who was an idealist. His form of idealism relied upon a dialectic of the Spirit that he believed operated within human history. The dialectic moved from a thesis, to an anti-thesis, to a resolution. At the risk of oversimplification, Marx takes the fundamental inside of Hegel and gives it a materialistic interpretation. Human history is not the development of the spirit but a development of material forces seen in the development of economic regimes. Capitalism, and the economics of Smith and Ricardo are not, in Marx\u2019s view, the final form of economic organization but only a phase in the historical development of humankind. [3]<\/a><\/p>\n

    Marx\u2019s materialism was not, however, an inhuman materialism. Instead, he imbedded into his philosophy an important role for human consciousness. As one writer put it:<\/p>\n

    Marx was a close student of ancient and modern materialism. His dissertation concerned itself with the difference between the Epicurean and the Democritean philosophies of nature. He was at home, as his short excursion in Die Heilige Familie into the history of materialism shows, with modern materialisms. He could trace down to its finest nuances the influence of Cartesian rationalism and Locke\u2019s empiricism upon French medical theory out of which the materialistic sensationalism of the Encyclopaedists developed. He followed with keen interest the progress of the biological sciences in the 18th century. In all of these philosophies he finds one fundamental defect, an inability to explain the facts of perception and knowledge \u2013 in short, of meaningful consciousness.<\/strong> [4]<\/a><\/p>\n

    It\u2019s important to give Marx the most positive interpretation possible but at the same time to understand the limitations of his position. It is a positive aspect of Marx\u2019s analysis that it embraces the role of the human knower. Hegel over-emphasized the impact of the spirit and ideas on the course of human history. Marx reacted against this view, seeing the importance of material forces at work in history, politics, and particularly in the area of what we would call political economy.<\/p>\n

    As mentioned above, the Middle Ages ended with the development of a middle class, and power shifted from the landed gentry who were descendants of the original nobility in Europe to the bourgeoisie made up of capitalists, professionals, and others in a position to acquire wealth and power in such an economy. In some respects, the emergence of democracy was heavily influenced by the emergence of this middle class and its desire to be free of the historic power of the nobility and landed gentry. The powerful economic forces unleashed by the development of science and technology caused a massive change in human economic organization and in the structure of human life and consciousness. This aspect of Marx\u2019s work is important.<\/p>\n

    On the other hand, from up at purely historical perspective, it\u2019s obvious that not all human progress has been economically motivated. For example, it\u2019s difficult to see the work of Handel and many others as solely the result of historical material economic forces. Handel is a case in point: he seems to have been primarily motivated by religious concerns. A more balanced view is that, while economic forces are important and particularly important in a materialistic era, they are not the only forces at work in human history.<\/p>\n

    At this point, it may help a reader to introduce two terms: \u201cIdealistic Inflation\u201d and \u201cMaterialistic Collapse.\u201d In certain thinkers, Berkeley and Hegel being two, there is a tendency to inflate the importance of the ideal and the spirit in human affairs. In others, like Marx and modern materialistic capitalist thinkers, there is a tendency to reduce everything to the material and material forces. Wisdom is achieved by keeping the ideal and material influence in human affairs in an appropriate balance. [5]<\/a><\/p>\n

    More fundamentally, as this blog never ceases to point out, in the way of thinking characteristic of Newton and the Modern World, and which the work of Marx embodies, it is common to see the universe is made up solely of material particles and forces in the form of energy acting upon those material particles. Marxist theory is an outgrowth of that view of the world. However, we now know that this view of the world is fundamentally limited. At the deepest level, materialism breaks down and what appears to be the case is that the fundamental reality is made up of something like information, potentiality, and the emergence of order from non-material events at a subatomic level. [6]<\/a><\/p>\n

    In this view of reality, the \u201cmaterial world\u201d is an outgrowth of a world that is not material. In addition, the material world is made up of what might be called \u201clayers of reality.\u201d Chemistry is an outgrowth of physics but cannot be reduced to physics. Biology is an outgrowth of chemistry but cannot be reduced to chemistry. Human society emerges from biology but cannot be fully reduced to biological principles. At the level of human society, there emerges law, politics, art, literature, morality, and all the other aspects of human society and culture. These emergent realities cannot be fully reduced to their constituent physical participants or matter or forces. As a result, one difficulty with both Marxist economics and laissez-faire economics is the tendency to ignore the nonmaterial aspects of reality in their analysis of politics and other phenomenon.<\/p>\n

    Historicism<\/strong><\/p>\n

    An interesting paradox in Marx is that, while he critiques Smith and Ricardo, as well as all of \u201cbourgeoisie culture\u201d as historically relative phenomenon, he remains captured by the tendency of modern thinkers to in fact seek an end to history, which Marx finds in the dictatorship of the proletariat. As I have pointed out, the work of Charles Peirce and others casts grave doubt about the viability of such an endeavor, for all of history is relative and progressive and will remain so until the end of time. Every advance brings new problems, and every solution to the fundamental dilemma\u2019s of human life proves to be temporary. This is an inherent feature of human existence. The search for an end of history is dilusional.<\/p>\n

    Class Conflict<\/strong><\/p>\n

    In the Newtonian world view characteristic of the 19th<\/sup> Century and Marxist thought, all that exists is matter and forces acting upon that matter. Marx reduces the forces at work in political history to economic forces, and most importantly to an inevitable conflict of classes characteristic of human history. In the ancient world, it was a conflict between creditors and debtors. In the Middle Ages, it was the struggle between the feudal over-lords and serfs. In the modern world it was the struggle between the capitalists and bourgeoisie. It is class conflict that is the \u201cforce\u201d that powers human history and human society towards the end of a classless society. [7]<\/a><\/p>\n

    While it is important to give Marx credit for the insight that human history involves social conflict, Marx ignores and even dismisses the communal aspects of human history, which have been the subject of other essays in this blog. He regards the social and religious impulses of human beings as reflective of \u201cimmature development.\u201d [8]<\/a> Human beings are essentially social, and they seek social support. While there have been communities and social systems created by violence and conquest, there have also been societies created by the simple human need for order, protection, friendships, economic relationships, education, and a host of human values which are not reduceable to economic forces.<\/p>\n

    Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Next week, we shall look at the Communist Manifesto<\/em>, which is historically Marx\u2019s most famous contribution to political philosophy. I hope that this week\u2019s review of Marx gives a sufficient foundation for a look that the Manifesto. Marx is often a perspicuous critic of classical economic theory, and while not always accurate, his critique is to be pondered. His notion of \u201cClass Struggle\u201d as a component of social development and change is valuable, though perhaps not the \u201cend of the story.\u201d<\/p>\n

    Copyright 2022, G. Christopher Scruggs, All Rights Reserved<\/strong><\/p>\n

    [1]<\/a> Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (Chicago, IL: Henrey Regnery Company, 1953).<\/p>\n

    [2]<\/a> Karl Marx, Das Capital <\/em>in Britania Great Books<\/u>, Vol. 50 <\/em>Ed, Mortimer J. Adler (New York, NY: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1952), Citations to Communist Manifesto<\/em> will be from the same source, and hereafter each will be referred to as Das Capital<\/em> and Manifesto<\/em>, respectively.<\/p>\n

    [3]<\/a> Das Capital<\/em>, at 8.<\/p>\n

    [4]<\/a> Sidney Hook, Marx and Feuerbach (April 1936) https:\/\/www.marxists.org\/history\/etol\/writers\/hook\/1936\/04\/feuerbach.htm<\/a> (downloaded February 2, 2022).<\/p>\n

    [5]<\/a> This idea was suggested to me by James E. Loder in his book The Transforming Moment<\/em> (rev. ed. (Colorado Springs, CO: Helmers and Howard, 1989) wherein he develops imilar notions of \u201cEiconic Inflation,\u201d \u201cEiconic Collapse,\u201d and \u201cEiconic Reductionism\u201d. I feel that the terms \u201cIdealistic Inflation\u201d and \u201cMaterialistic Collapse\u201d are easier for lay persons to understand.<\/p>\n

    [6]<\/a> See as an introduction to this facet of post-modernity, Werner Heisenberg Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science <\/em>(New York, NY: Harper Perenial, 1962).<\/p>\n

    [7]<\/a> This is not the point to discuss this phenomena, but it is a fact that Marxist societies are not classless. What does happen is that a bureaucratic class emerges as the elite. As in Russia and China, this new elite eventually takes control of all of society, including the means of production and commerce. In both situations, what has emerged is a kind of \u201cnational socialism,\u201d in which the elite transfer control of business and commerce to themselves and their families and associates. In the West, this has taken the form of what is often called, \u201cCrony Capitalism.\u201d In neither case is the working and middle class benefited.<\/p>\n

    [8]<\/a> Id<\/u>, at 35.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    As I began this week, I realized it is impossible to give a sympathetic review of the work of Karl Marx without first discussing Adam Smith and the industrial revolution. Modern economic theory began with the work of Adam Smith. Though today best remembered for his seminal work, \u201cWealth of Nations\u201d, in his own day … Continue reading Marx 1: Background and Assumptions<\/span> →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2989","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4CzBH-Md","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/gchristopherscruggs.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2989","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/gchristopherscruggs.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/gchristopherscruggs.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gchristopherscruggs.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gchristopherscruggs.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2989"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/gchristopherscruggs.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2989\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2996,"href":"https:\/\/gchristopherscruggs.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2989\/revisions\/2996"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/gchristopherscruggs.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2989"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gchristopherscruggs.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2989"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gchristopherscruggs.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2989"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}