From Marx comes the idea that capitalist profits are possible because the value is "stolen" from the workers and transferred to employers. He was, without question, one of the most important and revolutionary thinkers of his time. Marx studied law in Bonn and Berlin, and at Berlin, was introduced to the philosophy of G. He became involved in radicalism at a young age through the Young Hegelians, a group of students who criticized the political and religious establishments of the day.
Marx received his doctorate from the University of Jena in His radical beliefs prevented him from securing a teaching position, so instead, he took a job as a journalist and later became the editor of Rheinische Zeitung , a liberal newspaper in Cologne. After living in Prussia, Marx lived in France for some time, and that is where he met his lifelong friend Friedrich Engels.
He was expelled from France and then lived for a brief period in Belgium before moving to London where he spent the rest of his life with his wife. Marx died of bronchitis and pleurisy in London on March 14, He was buried at Highgate Cemetery in London. His original grave was nondescript, but in , the Communist Party of Great Britain unveiled a large tombstone, including a bust of Marx and the inscription "Workers of all Lands Unite," an Anglicized interpretation of the famous phrase in The Communist Manifesto : "Proletarians of all countries, unite!
The Communist Manifesto summarizes Marx and Engels's theories about the nature of society and politics and is an attempt to explain the goals of Marxism, and, later, socialism.
When writing The Communist Manifesto , Marx and Engels explained how they thought capitalism was unsustainable and how the capitalist society that existed at the time of the writing would eventually be replaced by a socialist one.
By far the more academic work, it lays forth Marx's theories on commodities, labor markets, the division of labor and a basic understanding of the rate of return to owners of capital. The exact origins of the term "capitalism" in English are unclear, it appears that Karl Marx was not the first to use the word "capitalism" in English, although he certainly contributed to the rise of its use. According to the Oxford English Dictionary , the English word was first used by author William Thackeray in , in his novel The Newcomes , who intended it to mean a sense of concern about personal possessions and money in general.
While it's unclear whether either Thackeray or Marx was aware of the other's work, both men meant the word to have a pejorative ring. Still, there are some lessons that even modern economic thinkers can learn from Marx. Though he was the capitalist system's harshest critic, Marx understood that it was far more productive than previous or alternative economic systems.
In Das Kapital , he wrote of "capitalist production" that combined "together of various processes into a social whole," which included developing new technologies. He believed all countries should become capitalist and develop that productive capacity, and then workers would naturally revolt into communism.
But, like Adam Smith and David Ricardo before him, Marx predicted that because of capitalism's relentless pursuit of profit by way of competition and technological progress to lower the costs of production, that the rate of profit in an economy would always be falling over time. Like the other classical economists , Karl Marx believed in the labor theory of value to explain relative differences in market prices.
This theory stated that the value of a produced economic good can be measured objectively by the average number of labor hours required to produce it.
In other words, if a table takes twice as long to make as a chair, then the table should be considered twice as valuable. Marx understood the labor theory better than his predecessors even Adam Smith and contemporaries, and presented a devastating intellectual challenge to laissez-faire economists in Das Kapital : If goods and services tend to be sold at their true objective labor values as measured in labor hours, how do any capitalists enjoy profits?
It must mean, Marx concluded, that capitalists were underpaying or overworking, and thereby exploiting, laborers to drive down the cost of production. While Marx's answer was eventually proved incorrect and later economists adopted the subjective theory of value , his simple assertion was enough to show the weakness of the labor theory's logic and assumptions; Marx unintentionally helped fuel a revolution in economic thinking.
James Bradford "Brad" DeLong, professor of economics at UC-Berkeley, wrote in that Marx's "primary contribution" to economic science actually came in a paragraph stretch of The Communist Manifesto , in which he describes how economic growth causes shifts among social classes, often leading to a struggle for political power. This underlies an often unappreciated aspect of economics: the emotions and political activity of the actors involved.
A corollary of this argument was later made by French economist Thomas Piketty, who proposed that while nothing was wrong with income inequality in an economic sense, it could create blowback against capitalism among the people. Thus, there is a moral and anthropological consideration of any economic system. The idea that societal structure and transformations from one order to the next can be the result of technological change in how things are produced in an economy is known as historical materialism.
Accessed August 19, Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Use precise geolocation data. He was ruthless in print, made enemies of many friends and former allies, and did not suffer fools—a large subset of his acquaintance, in his view.
Still, he commanded respect. His hair was black; his eyes were black; his complexion was swarthy. In private, he was modest and gracious. When he was not sick—he had a bad liver, suffered from bronchitis, and grew fist-size boils, which Sperber thinks were caused by an autoimmune disorder but which may have been a symptom of his liver disease—he was playful and affectionate.
He loved Shakespeare, made up stories for his three daughters, and enjoyed cheap cigars and red wine. His wife and daughters adored him. He became engaged to Jenny von Westphalen, also from Trier, when he was eighteen and she was twenty-two.
Sperber thinks that a fairy tale has grown up about the marriage, but Jenny is said to have been exceptionally beautiful, and she was devoted to Karl.
He wrote passionate love poetry for her. The engagement lasted seven years, during which he finished his studies, and they rarely saw each other.
The relationship was mainly epistolary. Sperber believes that they had premarital sex. I certainly hope so. The one possible flaw in the domestic idyll has to do with a child born to their servant, Helene Demuth.
Almost all women in nineteenth-century Britain who could manage to retain a servant did so. Engels claimed paternity. This was not implausible. Engels was unmarried and had a taste for working-class women; his longtime lover, Mary Burns, worked in a Manchester factory.
It is sympathy for Marx that leads Sperber and Stedman Jones to insist that we read him in his nineteenth-century context, because they hope to distance him from the interpretation of his work made after his death by people like Karl Kautsky, who was his chief German-language exponent; Georgi Plekhanov, his chief Russian exponent; and, most influentially, Engels. The word the twentieth century coined for that was totalitarianism. His faith. But it was. Marx was an Enlightenment thinker: he wanted a world that is rational and transparent, and in which human beings have been liberated from the control of external forces.
Hegel argued that history was the progress of humanity toward true freedom, by which he meant self-mastery and self-understanding, seeing the world without illusions—illusions that we ourselves have created.
This is what Feuerbach wrote about. We created God, and then pretended that God created us. We are supplicants to our own fiction. Concepts like God are not errors. History is rational: we make the world the way we do for a reason. We invented God because God solved certain problems for us. But, once a concept begins impeding our progress toward self-mastery, it must be criticized and transcended, left behind.
Otherwise, like the members of the Islamic State today, we become the tools of our Tool. Marx was a philosopher. Marx liked to say that when he read Hegel he found philosophy standing on its head, so he turned it over and placed it on its feet. Life is doing, not thinking. It is not enough to be the masters of our armchairs. The cost, however, is a system in which one class of human beings, the property owners in Marxian terms, the bourgeoisie , exploits another class, the workers the proletariat.
They do it because competition demands it. Marx was a humanist. He believed that we are beings who transform the world around us in order to produce objects for the benefit of all.
That is our essence as a species. Capitalism is fated to self-destruct, just as all previous economic systems have self-destructed. Marx was fanatically committed to finding empirical corroboration for his theory. It was a heroic attempt to show that reality aligned with theory. Marx had very little to say about how the business of life would be conducted in a communist society, and this turned out to be a serious problem for regimes trying to put communism into practice.
He had reasons for being vague. Marx was clearer about what a communist society would not have. The state, in the form of the Party, proved to be one bourgeois concept that twentieth-century Communist regimes found impossible to transcend. Communism is not a religion; it truly is, as anti-Communists used say about it, godless. But the Party functions in the way that Feuerbach said God functions in Christianity, as a mysterious and implacable external power. Marx did not, however, provide much guidance for how a society would operate without property or classes or a state.
A good example of the problem is his criticism of the division of labor. Rather than have a single worker make one pin at a time, Smith argued, a pin factory can split the job into eighteen separate operations, starting with drawing out the wire and ending with the packaging, and increase production by a factor of thousands. But Marx considered the division of labor one of the evils of modern life. So did Hegel. It makes workers cogs in a machine and deprives them of any connection with the product of their labor.
Human beings are naturally creative and sociable. A system that treats them as mechanical monads is inhumane. But the question is, How would a society without a division of labor produce sufficient goods to survive? Nobody will want to rear the cattle or clean the barn ; everyone will want to be the critic. Nevertheless, it is not only the main way of social being in the modern world, but also remains unchanged in its essence: the growing social capital personified in the capitalist, as in ancient times, is opposed to those who create it.
Many interrelated indicators prove this statement. An unambiguous conclusion follows from this — Marxism adequately reflects the nature of capitalism and, therefore, as a social doctrine, it is true in principle.
It is in this regard that the position of Marxism is unshakable. In addition, none of the doctrines, however adequate to reality, is automatically realized. Even when the theory takes hold of the minds of billions of people, there is no mirror coincidence between it and social reality itself, since the theory is turned by people into practice. And, therefore, the question of who and where, when and how is based on Marxism in order to influence social processes is quite natural Lichtheim: In principle, the answer to this question was given by the founders of Marxism as follows: a the proletarian movement should be led by the Communist Party b the party is structurally divided into leadership party leaders and party masses ordinary party members ; c inner-party life is built on the principles of democracy, camaraderie, criticism, and self-criticism Marx: Compliance with the provisions of the last paragraph in real time and space was difficult and, often, was very dramatic.
There was practically no time in the history of the international communist movement when the thought of R. And, as a result, the practice of communist transformations mainly demonstrated two mutually exclusive approaches to solving this problem: dogmatic and subjective-voluntaristic.
The first approach required a mechanical, uncritical attitude to Marxism as a guide to action, chastising, arguing that one was correct by quoting certain provisions from the works of the classics of Marxism, and any attempt to creatively use it was declared revisionism, renegade Kitching: Perhaps the only exception concerned the leaders of the party, and even then during their lifetime, since after death, their contribution to the theory and practice of socialism, as a rule, was subjected to revision and obstruction.
The embodiment of literalism if you will — Marxist fundamentalism in the history of the USSR was the theory of proletarian culture, political and legal infringement, and even the persecution of citizens of non-proletarian and peasant origin, rejection of the new economic policy NEP proposed in exchange for the policy of military communism , Stalinism, and even practice of naming people Exchange: The manifestations of the second approach in the practice of Soviet socialism are vividly demonstrated by the activities of party leaders: almost every new leader of the CPSU this applies, in fact, to any Communist Party was regarded as the coming of Christ to Earth — his figure was deified.
However, just as in the first case, as long as he held power. Perhaps only V. Lenin, whose personality scale is so unique that the appearance of such is unlikely, managed to adhere to Marxism, creatively applying it in practice. And, sincethe collective leadership of social transformations is essentially a fiction, the question arises as to the possibility of being guided by the spirit and letter of Marxism Blyukher: The social theory of Marxism is based on the recognition of the contradiction between the social nature of production and the private capitalist way of appropriating the results of labor as such to require the rejection of capitalism by communism.
In other words, all other contradictions of the bourgeois socio-economic formation are sequent. It also follows that all other methods of solving non-Marxist social projects of this contradiction are pseudo-solutions because they do not eliminate the main thing — the exploitation of man by man Rigauer: However, the success of the implementation of the Marxist social project in such dependence on the maturity moral, theoretical, political, strong-willed of the performers that a return to the practice of communism in the foreseeable future, in our opinion, is not expected.
Anyhow, when we discuss the foreseeable communist perspective, we proceed voluntarily or involuntarily from recognizing the existing social conditions of life as sustainable so that we tend to consider them practically eternal. However, one ought to bear in mind that the development of society is carried out not only linearly, but also synergistically.
In addition, the reasons for the planetary scale may demand it as a universal need, making it impossible at least in a single country. She is a Mathematician, System Programmer. His research works are in Religious studies, philosophical anthropology, philosophy of culture.
0コメント