As someone who is sometimes critical of capitalism and enjoys telling people who hate Marxism that I’m a communist, I’ve heard many arguments about the EVIL of Marxism. This “evilness” usually has two major origins: Marxism’s atheism and its materialist view of history.
Let me take the latter first: I do agree that Marxism is based on the idea that the history of society should be read as a conflict between social classes and various production (labor, etc); in this way, it is materialistic. But that does not mean it is materialistic in the sense that it necessarily denies all spirituality. If Marx denied people have souls, that is tangential and not necessary to a materialistic view of history.
Let me give an example: Darwinism. Evolution is based solely on materialistic findings and foundations. Its conclusions do not take spirituality or human souls into consideration. However, this does not mean it is an argument against spirituality. At the time, people did think this was the case, though. Religious saw this scientific interpretation to biological history as problematic, since it didn’t offer us an interpretation of spirituality, nor did it seem to place God at the rightful head of the universe. Hopefully now most of us recognize that a materialist interpretation of something is not necessarily an argument against any or everything non-material.
As for the atheism “inherent” in Marxism: yes, if we’re discussing a type of Marxist interpretation that denies God, then it is anti-spirituality. However, it is my belief that Marx’s atheism was tangential to his material view of history, politics, and revolution. He may have desired the two to be interconnected, but that doesn’t mean they are.
Let me use Evolution again: Darwin, although initially spurred by a religious belief to reveal God’s Providence in nature, ended an atheist: he thought he disproved God and His Providence. But he wasn’t correct, just as Marx wasn’t, just as other people aren’t correct in trumpeting Darwin’s or Marx’s incorrect conclusions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
PS In what ways is capitalism NOT materialistic? Where or how does it point to anything transcendental? In terms of human dignity – and dignity is most definitely a transcendental idea – I view capitalism as a poor instrument of transcendental realities. The inherent problem in capitalism is that it treats people and their labors as means to ends.
ReplyDeleteIs it that capitalism seems tied to democracies? “In capitalistic democracies, religious freedom is an important tenant: therefore, capitalism lends itself to religious thought.” That’s not a good argument to me.
Ahem. Jonas, (at last! a fun argument :) my friend, I disagree with you here. 1st: Marxism is different from evolutionary biology and capitalism in that (I believe) materialism is not tangential. And I believe this pretty strongly as a history major (history is heavily influenced by marxist interpreters). If I didn't believe in God's marvelous plan for human beings, I would simply say Marxism is mistaken, since he wasn't working with all the data. But since I do believe the above, I call it "evil". If I'm missing important parts of his argument, correct me. Marxism views societies like physics views matter; things move into paths of least resistance. For people thats a society owned and run by individuals (huge simplification). The people are encouraged to encourage this state (via revolution and other social changes).
ReplyDeleteRather than prove the moral flaws of this view, may I simply refer to God here? He, more than anyone, knows the state for which Man longs, but the one thing He never, ever does is breach our free will, even though it hurts Him. Marx's view of history is mistaken, because he ignores a host of human motivations for war, religions, and whole social movements (think of the Civil War). Secondly, you can't encourage men to take things from other men because that would be more equitable (we're talking equity here, not survival).
2nd, detractors of capitalism (like my professor) always point to pure unregulated market as the measure of whether its good for society. But capitalism is only an observation of how markets work GIVEN THE ECONOMIC RULES in place; respect for man is conceivably among those rules. capitalism is much more similar to biology or physics: given this set of materials, in this closed system, supply and demand will even out at market equilibrium. Marxists are too used to thinking outside the free will system; they say, "but in capitalism, the big companies HAVE to gobble up the little ones, and buy and spend as much as possible; ppl have to buy the most cost-efficient goods" but capitalists don't even say that; they recognize that there are other forms of capital, including spiritual capital.
If, on the other hand, ownership itself is merely a construct of dominant groups, should we bother with it at all? Maybe everyone has equal right to all materials... An interesting thought experiment. Does putting work into something convey anything? Do I have "rights" of some kind to a tool or building that I build, or a piece of art that I produce? It seems that most people think so, and its on this idea that property rights seem to rest. If the house I build is "mine" then I can trade it for a house that is "yours"; to make things simpler I can trade it for shiny metal that we can assume everyone will find valuable); to make things even simpler, I can trade it out piecemeal in stocks to shareholders, who can then trade those pieces.... oh bother
ReplyDeleteI, too, am excited by this stimulating conversation. I have already begun to outline a fuller response, but let me just begin by clarifying an important point concerning “The tangential nature of Marxism's materialism/atheism:” I did not say materialism was tangential to Marxism; that would be silly. I did say that this materialism wasn't necessarily a materialism that precluded God, non-materials, or souls. What I did say was that atheism is tangential to Marxism. You may have understood this, but the beginning of your first response needed a little clarification. I shall return later (perhaps in a few days...ah, school is busy at the moment).
ReplyDeleteI think Marxism, as in, the philosophy developed by Marx himself, is atheistic. Wikipedia, the source of all knowledge, includes the phrase "an atheist view of human liberation" as part of its definition of Marxism. From Encyclopedia Brittanica's entry on Marxism: “'all that is called history is nothing else than the process of creating man through human labour, the becoming of nature for man. Man has thus evident and irrefutable proof of his own creation by himself.' Understood in its universal dimension, human activity reveals that 'for man, man is the supreme being.' It is thus vain to speak of God, creation, and metaphysical problems."
ReplyDelete(Obviously, the most prominent practicioners of his philosophy (Lenin and Mao), practiced Marxism in an atheistic manner.)
With all that being said, I think you can take insights from Marx's philosophy without being corrupted by atheism. No doubt laws, other social institutions and even religious practices are influenced by our economic systems, but Marx's radical reductionism which holds all human interactions can be solely explained by economic causes is something you want to handle with care (almost 100 million people died under Marxist governments in the last century.)
50 million under capitalist usa in last 40 years
ReplyDeleteI was fully prepared to respond with a long post, replete with complex syllogisms, rebuttals of statements, and clarifications of thought. However, as is my wont revelation, there is so much foundational material we would need to discuss and agree upon way before this step. As such, I will make a few off-hand comments, not a full argument.
ReplyDeleteA Of course a lot of our argument depends on how we choose to define Marxism. It means one thing to some people, and another thing to others. There may be overlapping aspects (think Venn diagrams), but what doesn’t overlap may be more important at times. I guess one of my points was that there is a way to define Marxism that doesn’t include atheism. Whether or not this is a definition that deletes too much from the original to the point that it isn’t Marxism but simply “a few good points borrowed from a political theory” could be argued.
B Another difficulty in this argument is the old “comparing apples and oranges” issue. Depending on our definitions of capitalism and Marxism, we are usually comparing two separate entities – whether it’s “a set of economic principles vs. an entire theory of government” or “an economic system that implies a specific view of the human person vs. a set of governmental principles that implies a specific view of property and history,” these are proverbial apples and oranges.
C I did want to make a point about Basil’s view of capitalism. I think there’s a bit of naivety involved in his standpoint. First, capitalism is not an observation; it’s a set of economic principles. Making it an “observation” makes it sound both unable to be judged (since an observation can’t really be judged), and natural (natural in the sense that it isn’t a set of laws imposed on a society, but simply the normal way any human society would evolve towards.)
But what I really find lacking is the thought that since capitalism doesn’t REQUIRE or force big companies or rich people to exploit small companies or poor people, that it isn’t reprehensible on any level. A system that rewards (or naturally evolves towards) a certain sort of behavior may not FORCE the behavior, but it’s still the problem. Let’s look at the history of capitalist societies. Besides the progress and material gain, it is a narrative of exploitation and widening economic classes. Yes, we need to be aware that people can be motivated by something other than greed, but capitalists need to be aware that we are fallen humans, and that at the heart of our falseness is a desire and propensity for selfishness – and a system that uses this propensity is genius, but perhaps not good for the overall state of our moral selves. Yes, Marxism may be too idealistic at times, expecting people to care for one another; but worse on a deeper level is a system that exploits humans’ basic weakness: our selfishness, a result of the Fall.
D Are you, John42, saying that because there have been millions of deaths in different Marxist regimes, there is a definite and consequential relationship? [Post hoc: just because A follows B doesn’t mean A was caused by B.] Similarly, there are other ways of viewing the historical facts. Here’s one: Countries that have become Marxist/Communist are often led this way politically because Marx preached (or spoke about) revolution – and these countries were in political turmoil or instability. This initial turmoil and instability, not in any way directly connected to Marxism, sets the stage for totalitarian regimes; and it is these regimes that cause the millions of deaths. Perhaps you think I’m being too nit-picky and avoiding what looks like the obvious truth, but I’m simply saying that there are other (valid) interpretations of the facts. My last point on this: Religion: People LOVE viewing the history of religion as one of violence: Crusades, Imperialism, exploitation, terrorism, etc. While the events and facts lie close on a time-line, is religion the reason for this violence? Should we reject religion?
E I like study halls at school.
Jonas (is it wierd or unhealthy that we friends are addressing one another via made-up names?), On Capitalism:
ReplyDeleteyou're right that capitalism is a set of principles, not observations. But I think the capitalist does see capitalism as natural course (even tho certain societies have gone different ways, those tend to seem forced, unnatural, to artificial to survive in nature). To the capitalist, isn't the "free market" the natural state inside a given system? [thought on the fall: institutional slavery can probably curb much selfish behavior on the part of slaves, but isn't liberation good for them (obviously this example makes extremes of the ownership of property) a certain amount of freedom is necessary to transcend the self, which brings me to...
On Marxism: My general feeling is still that Marxist materialism means atheism, because it describes every aspect of society. I also find problematic in all socialist views the viewing of difference as struggle only; this certainly precludes dialogue/communion. to the socialist inequity=iniquity (sorry).
Re BSH: touche, kind of, but my casualty count for the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China didn't include abortion. The Soviet Union was actually the first country to legalize abortions in modern times (1920). And of course, abortion was a tool China used to enforce its one-child policy. So abortion plagues both capitalist and Marxist societies, but it's less likely to be imposed by the government in a capitalist society.
ReplyDeleteRe Jonas: Definitions indeed. My point with the Wikipedia and Britannica quotes was to show that the common definition of Marxism includes atheist materialism. You could attempt to apply insights from Marxism while excising the atheist parts, e.g. Liberation Theology, but then I don't think you could simply call it Marxism anymore. I think you'd have to use a modifier, like Jonasite Marxism (which kind of has a ring to it that might lure me into supporting it. Damn its siren song!).
As for the bloody history of Marxist regimes, I'm not sure a definite and consequential relationship can be clearly demonstrated, which is why I refrained from making such a strong claim. But I think alternatives that exonerate Marxism from any culpability are strained, and less plausible. Regarding religion, we're both familiar with Girard. Religion is also something that should be handled with care!
I'll try to come back later to say something snide about capitalism.