Karl Marx [1] took his cue from the dialectical method of G. W. F. Hegel[2]. According to Hegel, history is a dialectic process[3] moving towards “the consciousness on the part of the Spirit.” The mystic process is involves going through a series of stages. The spirit develops in stages, underlying a succession of opposition from within and then the reconciliation after the struggles: that any given state of society (the thesis) produces its main opposite (the antithesis), and the conflict between the two leads to their progression (the synthesis). Marx adopted this dialectical method. Where I believe Hegel found it in the realm of ideas, Marx was able to apply it in material conditions. In Hegel’s view, history is determined by the universal spirit which shapes the worldly institutions while Marx formulated the reverse: that institutions shape ideas. Although, we can still see the connection because both believed that history is a dialectic process or is continuing. Human history is moving, according to dialectics.
It is quite good to note, however, that Marx applied Hegel’s view and gave it a material concept. The idea of the thesis, antithesis and synthesis were given a body. Thus, the thesis corresponds to the ancient, pre-capitalist period when there are no classes or exploitation. The antithesis corresponds to the era of capitalism and labor exploitation. Synthesis is the final product – communism.
The 3rd stage, I believe is where I disagree with Marx. The last stage according to him is communism. The logical implication is with the establishment of this society, history comes to an end. I believe that this is historically inaccurate and absurd to say the least. There is no such thing as a final process or the end of historical evolution. Marx is not a prophet.
However, if we are going to look closer at his writing we would come to the idea that in the course of history there is an effort to master the forces of nature. Indeed, man has been trying to control events. Man has been trying to rule the cosmos. Marx, I believe was able to introduce an entirely new idea. A new element to make people believe that history is not controlling the society along with its ideas and institutions but rather it is the other way around. It is the economic system and the institutions that is shaping history. He introduced a new element, of course by attributing to the characteristics of the economic system and its relation to the society.
This system is the main prime mover that will determine the prevailing idea of a given epoch. The movement of the spirit happens when there is a conflict between classes. The idea of change results from conflicts between social classes. Marx argues that there have been exactly three modes, distinct modes of production in the civilized west.
If I must say, Hegel got the spirit, Marx got the economic institutions that evolved in regular stages. Each stage was characterized by a different mode of production and I would say who owns the means of production. Of course, primitive people were organized in a simple and primitive form in which all means of production was collectively owned and all power was shared. The second stage according to Marx is the feudal mode of production that is found in the medieval period. This is the time when a few people owns a huge measure of land and needs many laborers. This is followed by the so-called capitalism. This is the time of the machines.
I would say that Marx idea is quite convincing in the sense that he was able to provide us with the sort of explanation that Hegel wasn’t able to do. He applied the idea into some thing that is material in nature. I believe that he was able to point it out that is not just ideas that shaped human societies but rather economic forces. We have the cities as we do because of these economic forces. He put strong emphasis on the economic factors. It is class conflict of class struggle. In Marx analysis, all ideas and culture forms reflected material motivations.
I would have to agree with Marx analysis on the idea that the chief feature of every society is that it is divided into two classes: those who owned the means of production and those who did not. The society and the means of production are indeed controlled by the most powerful class. It is the basic struggle for material power or who owns more. I should say that Marx theory includes both material and philosophical element. It is material because it deals with real social events in society, on the other hand, it is philosophical because it is an interpretation of the future. There is no such thing as a society without conflict. In any society, these conflicts are unavoidable and a society where there is no group or inter-group conflict is impossible. I believe that human progress was determined, structured and distorted by many factors. Not just by economic struggle but by a lot more.
If I would consider his idea on a more personal level, it has provided a new meaning and a new hope. . I would seriously hope that there will come a time when there will be no inequality and no exploitation. Such a time when we live in a society that is free from oppression and inequality. But surely, it is from realization because history is a continuing process and I don’t believe that the end of it is near to reality.
[1] Karl Marx (May 5, 1818 – March 14, 1883) - a 19th-century philosopher, political economist, sociologist, humanist, political theorist and revolutionary. Often called the father of communism.
[2] Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (August 27, 1770 – November 14, 1831) was a German philosopher and is the author of the famous slogan “thesis, synthesis and antithesis.”
[3] Dialectic – all things unfold in a continuous evolutionary process
_________________________________________________________________It is quite good to note, however, that Marx applied Hegel’s view and gave it a material concept. The idea of the thesis, antithesis and synthesis were given a body. Thus, the thesis corresponds to the ancient, pre-capitalist period when there are no classes or exploitation. The antithesis corresponds to the era of capitalism and labor exploitation. Synthesis is the final product – communism.
The 3rd stage, I believe is where I disagree with Marx. The last stage according to him is communism. The logical implication is with the establishment of this society, history comes to an end. I believe that this is historically inaccurate and absurd to say the least. There is no such thing as a final process or the end of historical evolution. Marx is not a prophet.
However, if we are going to look closer at his writing we would come to the idea that in the course of history there is an effort to master the forces of nature. Indeed, man has been trying to control events. Man has been trying to rule the cosmos. Marx, I believe was able to introduce an entirely new idea. A new element to make people believe that history is not controlling the society along with its ideas and institutions but rather it is the other way around. It is the economic system and the institutions that is shaping history. He introduced a new element, of course by attributing to the characteristics of the economic system and its relation to the society.
This system is the main prime mover that will determine the prevailing idea of a given epoch. The movement of the spirit happens when there is a conflict between classes. The idea of change results from conflicts between social classes. Marx argues that there have been exactly three modes, distinct modes of production in the civilized west.
If I must say, Hegel got the spirit, Marx got the economic institutions that evolved in regular stages. Each stage was characterized by a different mode of production and I would say who owns the means of production. Of course, primitive people were organized in a simple and primitive form in which all means of production was collectively owned and all power was shared. The second stage according to Marx is the feudal mode of production that is found in the medieval period. This is the time when a few people owns a huge measure of land and needs many laborers. This is followed by the so-called capitalism. This is the time of the machines.
I would say that Marx idea is quite convincing in the sense that he was able to provide us with the sort of explanation that Hegel wasn’t able to do. He applied the idea into some thing that is material in nature. I believe that he was able to point it out that is not just ideas that shaped human societies but rather economic forces. We have the cities as we do because of these economic forces. He put strong emphasis on the economic factors. It is class conflict of class struggle. In Marx analysis, all ideas and culture forms reflected material motivations.
I would have to agree with Marx analysis on the idea that the chief feature of every society is that it is divided into two classes: those who owned the means of production and those who did not. The society and the means of production are indeed controlled by the most powerful class. It is the basic struggle for material power or who owns more. I should say that Marx theory includes both material and philosophical element. It is material because it deals with real social events in society, on the other hand, it is philosophical because it is an interpretation of the future. There is no such thing as a society without conflict. In any society, these conflicts are unavoidable and a society where there is no group or inter-group conflict is impossible. I believe that human progress was determined, structured and distorted by many factors. Not just by economic struggle but by a lot more.
If I would consider his idea on a more personal level, it has provided a new meaning and a new hope. . I would seriously hope that there will come a time when there will be no inequality and no exploitation. Such a time when we live in a society that is free from oppression and inequality. But surely, it is from realization because history is a continuing process and I don’t believe that the end of it is near to reality.
[1] Karl Marx (May 5, 1818 – March 14, 1883) - a 19th-century philosopher, political economist, sociologist, humanist, political theorist and revolutionary. Often called the father of communism.
[2] Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (August 27, 1770 – November 14, 1831) was a German philosopher and is the author of the famous slogan “thesis, synthesis and antithesis.”
[3] Dialectic – all things unfold in a continuous evolutionary process
Sources:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx. Retrived 24 July 2008-07-25
“Karl Marx.” Wikipedia.org. Updated 2008. Retrieved 24 July 2008.
Karl Marx. In the Encyclopedia of World Biography. (Vol. 7, p. 230). USA: McGraw Hill
Sills, D.L (1968). Marx, Karl. In the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. (Vol. 10, p. 35). USA: Macmillan Co. & the Free Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment