So...in this political theory class, I also covered Marx. You will see some references to John Stuart Mill in this reaction. We read that between Rousseau and Marx, and while I did not react directly to mill, mainly because the Rousseau reaction took so much out of me, I'd say Mill was my favorite philosopher who I studied in this class, and my brand of libertarianism was based more on Mill's "On Liberty", rather than someone like say, Ayn Rand or something.
Anyway, here's my reaction to Karl Marx's writings:Overall, as someone who is rather economically conservative and overall prefers the free market system, I have to say that I liked Marx a lot more than I thought I would. I do not agree with his ideas for overthrowing the system as I will mention later, but I did agree with many of the premises he built his arguments on (Marx, 70-200). I also like the fact that he used history to back up his arguments (Marx, 145-200); one thing I did not like about some other authors I have read in this class is the fact that they did not offer such a grounded approach to their philosophy. I agree with Marx about how the current system of labor completely wrecks a person’s life and does not allow people to act as individuals (Marx, 70-101). I think that some people really do throw their lives away seeking careers solely to make money (Marx, 94-97). Some people seem to spend their whole lives working and never really enjoy life or even the fruits of their labor (Marx, 94-97). What is the point in owning a huge mansion, a seventy-two inch plasma TV, and having five cars if you never have the time to enjoy them and you are too busy working in order to get more money to buy more stuff that you will in turn never enjoy? I think that labor is necessary in all systems in order for society to function and for people to live. I am not against the concept of work here; I just think that spending one’s whole life in pursuit of money without ever really living is a waste (Marx, 94-97). In short, I think that work is necessary, but it should not be the primary function of their life unless they want it to be1; if they do not, it should only be a means of living and nothing more. Some people actually do enjoy their work; the president of the United States probably feels great satisfaction for being president and will spend years on the campaign trail to get there, but this is not the case in all jobs, and not everyone would want to be president.
I also agree with Marx’ views regarding the modern relationship between a worker and an employer to an extent (Marx, 74-75). While I think that such a relationship is necessary, it is true that a worker is ultimately working for his employer’s benefit instead of his own (Marx, 73-74). I also agree that such a relationship can consume one’s life against their will and turn them into robots (Marx, 74-75). I know my dad’s former employer once told him that he had to work for like twelve hours every day and that the fact that he had a family was his problem and that his job was more important. I could not think of a clearer example of people being alienated from their lives other than this (Marx, 74-75).
On the other hand, I do not really buy into the whole concept that such a relationship does in fact alienate everyone from their work (Marx, 70-81). While I understand that if someone makes a chair or something and then sells it himself, he can feel pride in making a good chair as opposed to merely producing one in the factory for someone else (Class, 4/29/09). However, given that the wages are good enough, I think that working in a factory could also be something to be proud of, which is something Marx did not agree with (Marx, 80). I think that if people earn enough money and can buy a house or something, they can take pride in that. I know this sounds a little contradictory to what I just said earlier about people working their lives away, but it really is not. If people work up the ladder to earn something that gives them great pride and enjoyment, who is to take that away? In my opinion, if that is what they want to do with their life, it is up to them as long as their quest for happiness does not interfere with someone else’s (Mill, 80).
I do not agree with Marx at all on his views regarding overthrowing the system (Marx, 162-200). As much as the current system is flawed (Marx, 70-200), I do not think abolishing it is a good idea at all. Marx’s what the ideal community is like is a bit too utopian to me, and I do not think that utopias work (Class, 5/4/09; Marx, 162-200). We live in a real world and that world just is not perfect and it is not going to change in that sense overnight if at all. Let’s say that the workers overthrew the system and abolished the state and the current ruling class (Marx, 162-200). Now what? Marx mentioned how people need to have the means to overthrow the system and people cannot just make the change mentally, but the converse is also true (Marx, 169). Marx talked about how our ideas are shaped by the people in charge, that being the bourgeoisie (Marx, 165-174). Merely getting rid of the system and setting up a new one based on principles just will not work (Marx, 165-174). When the North beat the South in the civil war, the former slave owners did not all of the sudden want black people to be equal to them and instead oppressed them with the Jim Crow laws (Pilgrim). The old paradigms were still there (Pilgrim), and this is a major problem with Marx’s revolution; the bourgeois paradigms would still be in peoples’ heads because they were exposed to them their entire lives (Marx, 165-174). Moreover, who is to say that when the proletariat overthrows the system that they will set up a system in the best interest of all? After all, it could become a democracy like Aristotle described, if not worse (Aristotle, 79). Since bourgeois paradigms still exist in peoples’ minds and people still like property (Marx, 165-174), people can just take advantage of the instability of the system and establish their dominance. Thus, like the bourgeoisie overthrowing the aristocrats before them, one ruling class will just be replaced with another (Marx, 174).
I also do not think abolishing the division of labor is practical (Marx, 197-200). I do not think it is really possible for someone to be a doctor one day, a garbage person the next, and then a nuclear physicist (Class, 5/4/09). The reason we are going to college is to get a degree in a certain field, or possibly two fields. While it is possible to be somewhat rounded, ultimately, people are probably going to specialize, since it takes years for people to prepare for their careers. Moreover, I would not want someone to do work in something that they are not qualified in. Think about this: would you want someone with no knowledge of medicine to do surgery on you, or would you prefer someone who has thorough knowledge of the field and a lot of experience? Marx’s ideas regarding no division of labor probably worked back in the old tribal system when life in general was much simpler (Marx, 151), but life now is very complex and I do not think abolishing the division of labor is practical.
Instead of overthrowing the system, I think that working to mitigate the negative effects of it is a better alternative. I base a lot of my views in economics off of Mill’s harm principle, which basically says that the only legitimate reason for government intervention into peoples’ lives is to prevent harm from being done to others (Mill, 80). I do not think that it is necessarily wrong for people to want to attain wealth; the problem is the harm that one’s conquest of wealth can do to others (Marx, 70-101; Mill, 80). Marx described this harm very well (Marx, 70-101). First of all, I think that workers in most professions should not be forced to work more than so many hours a day by law (the eight hour work day sounds good to me). This way, if people do not want to make the accumulation of wealth and the advancement of their career their top priority in life, they can still have time to develop as individuals and live their lives as they see fit (Marx, 94-97; Mill, 80). Moreover, I think that people should be guaranteed at least a certain wage. I am not saying everyone should be millionaires, but I think that people deserve fair compensation for their work and should not be starving after working for twelve hours a day (Class, 4/29/09). I think that this would be a better alternative to overthrowing the system and risking yet another perverted form of government emerging from the mess created (Marx, 165-174). It probably would not eliminate the underlying causes of the problems in the current system that Marx describes (Marx, 145-200), but I find his solution to be worse than these causes.
Overall, I found Marx to be a lot more interesting than I thought I would. He discussed an array of topics including the alienation of the worker from his labor and even his own life, how money can more or less dominate one’s life, a detailed description of economic history, how the ruling class shapes our views, and how to abolish the present system and build a new one on different principles (Marx, 70-200). I agree with a lot of Marx’s premises regarding the alienation and the place money has in modern life (Marx, 70-101), but I do not think overthrowing the system is possible or practical (Marx, 165-174). Since many of the same paradigms people have are present even after the system is overthrown, there is no guarantee a new system could work (Marx, 165-174). After all, when the bourgeoisie overthrew the aristocracy, they took control and did exactly what the aristocracy did (Marx, 174). At best, I think what could happen would be the development of a democracy similar to what Aristotle described (Aristotle, 79). I also do not agree with Marx’s ideas regarding abolishing the division of labor because nowadays, it takes years for people to become prepared for their careers and it makes no sense for them to change what they do for a living all the time (Marx, 197-200).
1 I am a strong supporter of Mill’s harm principle, and do not think people should be discouraged from working and earning money as long as they are not harming others in doing so (Mill, 80).
So...keep in mind, I'm a conservative when I wrote this. But yeah. Also keep in mind, I was a conservative who hated rich people and wasn't really a fan of the idea of working for a living even then, I felt like work was necessary, I justified my views within structural functionalism, but yeah. Clearly not a fan and even I could understand what was so appealing about Marx. I just felt like communism didn't work. And it doesn't.
But yeah. First paragraph, yeah, you can see where I was on work even then. Like...wasn't a fan of the concept, and clearly understood capitalism was oppressive. This was because of my own family's history with it. Of course, I cited my own dad's experience working with the HVAC company Sears, which in the 1990s had rather oppressive work policies and got no better in the years since. This is something I think we should really talk about. A lot of Trumpers, for example, dont seem to actually like the wealthy and the like either. But they're brainwashed into a conservative worldview.
On alienation, I'll still agree that some people can feel pride in their work, but on factory work...I'm clearly referring to like 20th century union work here. Ya know, the kind that existed here in Pennsylvania between 1945 and 1980 or so, and that no longer does exist. And even then, uh...given how I've evolved on work, yeah I really dont agree with that whole model. Like, I AM a lot more anti work now than I was then. Back then i accepted it as a necessary evil. Now I realize we're creating jobs for their own sake and it's fricking stupid and that we shouldn't do it.
STILL, I always did have that libertarian streak in me. And I kinda believed even then it was up to the individual. If people wanted to work, and truly liked it, that's up to them. It's kind of like the whole lazies vs crazies arguments Van parijs demonstrates in his ideology. Ideally society should support both. And while in my own personal ideology I think work is oppressive and people shouldnt aspire to work more than they have to, well, again, we're gonna live in a pluralistic libertarian society and people arent gonna agree with me. It's a lot like how I find organized religions to be distasteful but I still affirm freedom of religion. You gotta let people live as they want. Left wing authoritarians trying to impose their own ultimate version of truth on people are going to backfire.
But yeah. Between Rousseau, Mill, and Marx, and the influences all 3 have had on my thinking, it's not surprising i ended up where I am now. My view is kind of a mishmash of the three combined. I recognize from marx that capitalism and work is oppressive. I support my approach from a perspective that's pro freedom. And Rousseau, well, Rousseau had the whole property being the source of oppression thing and the idea of the social contract.
But yeah, it's not really surprising where I ended up and my current worldview is like a synthesis of all of these guys. Or rather, I was driven toward more modern philosophers in the UBI movement like van parijs and widerquist who are more aligned with synthesizing these different schools of thought.
I'm actually surprised how progressive I was. Like, despite being a conservative and a tea party republican during this time, I clearly supported things like minimum wage laws and worker protections as we were able to have them and wasn't for just unfettered capitalism. My positions were actually closer to democrats than republicans. But that's cognitive dissonance for you. And this is why I really have this view that a lot of conservatives are like this. Because I was like this, and once my deconversion and associated issues forced me to take a side, i realized that right wingers were just insane and evil and haven't supported them since.
And then in rebuilding my worldview, I ended up going toward concepts that reflected and actually synthesized these conflicting ideologies at the time into something that...isn't really conflicting and is quite logically consistent.
And even when I started this blog, I pointed out, hey, marx, great analyzer of capitalism. Great at defining problems. But the revolution stuff, not so great. You gotta go in the more liberal direction there. And I did. And forging my own path, again...now I ain't really like "well I agree with marx but I also agree with mill", it's more "I agree with van parijs and widerquist who give us a form of left libertarianism that synthesizes these concepts into the political platform that I now support."
And yeah, that's all I really have to say here.
No comments:
Post a Comment