Marx's communism, as explained, is unlike any sort of economical or political structure of communism with which I was familiar; for example China or the Soviet Union. This is because Marx's communism is not first an economic or political solution but rather a social and more importantly humanist movement. According to Marx this movement is specifically "man's emancipation and rehabilitation" from a misguided society: one based on the objectification of the self through justification of the self in the material which Marx labels "private property"(79). The basis of the movement is to re-establish human essence; returning society to an even keel. Marx sees the key to this egalitarian reality in the shared and equal dependency of all individuals on each other.
Marx introduces the concept of "Crude communism" which was the sort of which I was familiar: spreading the wealth, destruction of the proletariat, all in all a revolutionary de-harmonizing process. Marx claims that this sort of communism is incomplete, "Communism (a) still of plitical nature, democratic or despotic; (b) with the overcoming of the state, but still incomplet and influenced by private property". Marx tries to better express the function of his ideal later in the reading in his analysis of the "rich man"(77). In Marx's praxis this man of great material wealth is still in need of "a totality of human manifestations of life" in that his identity of needing wealth in a misconstrued reality. Marx argues that this individual, completely independent from others in his material world is missing the true need of "human and thus social meaning". Marx details that the rich man's material capital, forgone in this new and improved socially based society, will be tempered with the social capital of his fellow man which will be equal to his "private" contribution to the society. Thus the rich man is freed from the slavery of his objective self-definition through private property just as Marx's communism also frees the laborer from the slavery of his objectification and definition by the commodity produced. This even exchange of capital (both social and material) and the equal freedom of self-definition places the laborer and the property holder in the same state of existence; eliminating class struggles and uniting society through a inter-humanistic investment. Previously when I thought of communism I thought of it as a means for those with less to attain more by taking from others, a forcible balance of the economic and political scales in times of political volatility. Yet after completeing this reading I see the ideal that Marx proposes as a very different entity that desires to bring harmony to a disturbed society which will then be reflected in both the economic and political spheres.
Discussion Questions:
During this reading did you find yourself questioning highschool history class teaching of the futility of communism i.e. Soviet Russia? How did this effect your reading of Marx's work and having finished it does the ideal he presented seem as unfeasible as communism is typically portrayed in western society? (take the last question with a grain of salt as this is specifically Marx's theory, the ideal not accounting for humans being human).
I think it is important to remember that this text is part of Marx’s earlier writings, and so the communism he describes here-in is not necessarily “Marx’s communism” as Morgan suggests in his post. In addition, I do not believe physical capital can be equated to social interaction. The rich do not receive social capital in exchange for their physical capital; rather, social capital is developed as a result of the equal ownership of physical capital. Marx states that “the senses and satisfactions of other men have become my own appropriation... [and that] social organs are therefore developed in the form of society; for example, activity in direct association with others, etc., has become an organ of a life expression and a way of appropriating human life” (74). The shared production and ownership of goods is what produces social capital, and so the rich do not receive an exchange per se but rather only benefit as part of humanity after they have relinquished their material wealth.
ReplyDeleteMorgan, it is interesting because I think that I may have been approaching Marx in an opposite manner to you. In high school, I supported theoretical communism but I had never read Marx. Now, upon reading Marx, even the theoretical communism that I appreciated seems less than the shining image I imagined. This is because I don't think that Marx's logic about workers in capitalist societies being alienated is necessarily valid and that his conclusion to create the communist society does not necessarily solve all wrongs (ex. women as universal property).
ReplyDeleteI agree with Morgan that Marx describes a communism different from my ideas of the governments of China and the Soviet Union, and perhaps any form of government. Marx describes communism as a guiding life ethic more than a form of government. Rather than a new government deciding to be communist, I imagine the communism portrayed in the passage we read can only be implemented slowly, as the culture of a society accommodates Marx's ideas. To do this societal values must shift away from "possession as means of living" (74) towards an appreciation of human interaction. Only once people appreciate social interaction more than possessing objects will people be able to live Marx's communism (if it actually is Marx's communism).
ReplyDeleteHaving taken a class on Cold War politics, I found Morgan's discussion (and the following comments) very interesting. If, unlike in my class, we take Communism as a way of life rather than a political entity, then it becomes far more believeable of a possibility. As Josh points out, Communism is brought about by the society rather than by the government. Just as vegetarianism is no valid political system and was never meant to be such, so too perhaps Communism should not be taken as such. Marx himself states that only crude communism "wants to abstract from talent, etc., by force." (69) In such states as Russia and China, the form of communism presented is enforced by force, much as in crude communism. Marx's enlightenment "begins with atheism...the philanthropy of atheism [becomes] that of communism [which] is at once real and immediately bent towards action." (72) Philanthropy is the desire to do good for others -- it cannot be forced, but comes about naturally. In short, I believe that Communism could work, but it is a mindset, and not a political system, and as such cannot be enforced but must be embraced.
ReplyDeleteGoing off of what Josh and Gabe are saying, I think that because this specific Communism is based upon people's lifestyles, and not necessarily through government action, it seems like it would be very unlikely that a society would create this change on its own. Marx says that "Private property has made us so stupid and one-sided..."all... senses have been replaced by alienation of them all.." (74). With people already in this state of mind, it seems like a governmental approach to essentially force people to make changes is more likely to work.
ReplyDeleteThey believe that the root of the problem lies somewhere inside the body and not just the affected area. Cork Physio
ReplyDelete