[image linked to wikipedia page image]
not sure why i haven’t added a page before now.. i guess just so controversial..
adding page while taking in egalitarianism (can’t remember how i got there) –
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels believed that a revolution would bring about a socialist society which would then eventually give way to a communist stage of social development, which would be a classless, stateless, humane society erected on common ownership and the principle of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs“. Marxism advocates egalitarianism for the working class. Marx wrote in the Communist Manifesto that “the working men have no country” and “workers of the world, unite!“.
However, Marxism rejected egalitarianism in the sense of greater equality between classes, clearly distinguishing it from the socialist notion of the abolition of classes based on the division between workers and owners of productive property. *Marx’s view of classlessness was not the subordination of society to a universal interest (such as a universal notion of “equality”), but was about the creation of the conditions that would enable individuals to pursue their true interests and desires. Thus, Marx’s notion of communist society is radically individualistic.
Karl Marx was a proponent of two principles, the first applied to socialism and the second to an advanced communist society: “To each according to his contribution” and “from each according to their ability; to each according to their need“. Although Marx’s position is often confused or conflated with distributive egalitarianism, in which only the goods and services resulting from production are distributed according to a notional equality, in reality Marx eschewed the entire concept of equality as abstract and bourgeois in nature, preferring to focus on more concrete principles such as opposition to exploitation on materialist grounds and economic logic.
see – have so many people/pages who/that reference him on site.. so dream app/chip would link it all.. rather than having to search.. embed in words/ideas..
which .. at least here.. sounds like what he was after… *here – pursue interests/desires.. radically individualistic
individualism ness gets to michels take on ni…?
aren’t they the same thing..?
@mbauwens – : no they aren’t … bitcoin is a good example of the former, faircoin of the latter
networked individuals working toward common purpose & universal human interests
a nother way via hosting life bits
add bee page…Loretta Lynch…
how I feel.. ie w Michel…
no one asking me anything ..assuming I don’t know…
when I ask them… it’s based on assumed languages/verbiages/defns… where wikipedia (and hopefully hosting life bits) really does well.. linking all the words to intended meaning
Karl Marx (/mɑːrks/; German:[ˈkaɐ̯l ˈmaɐ̯ks]; 5 May 1818 – 14 March 1883) was a philosopher, economist,sociologist, journalist, and revolutionary socialist. Born in Prussia to a middle-class family, he later studied political economy and Hegelian philosophy. As an adult, Marx became stateless and spent much of his life in London, England, where he continued to develop his thought in collaboration with German thinker Friedrich Engels and published various works, the most well-known being the 1848 pamphlet The Communist Manifesto. His work has since influenced subsequent intellectual, economic, and political history.
Marx’s theories about society, economics and politics—collectively understood as Marxism—hold that human societies develop through class struggle: a conflict between ruling classes (known as the bourgeoisie) that control the means of production and working classes (known as the proletariat) that work on these means by selling their labour for wages. Through his theories of alienation, value, commodity fetishism, and surplus value, Marx argued that capitalism facilitated social relations and ideology through commodification, inequality, and the exploitation of labour. Employing a critical approach known as historical materialism, Marx propounded the theory of base and superstructure, asserting that the cultural and political conditions of society, as well as its notions of human nature, are largely determined by obscured economic foundations. These economic critiques would result in influential works such as Capital, Volume I (1867).
According to Marx, states are run in the interests of the ruling class but are nonetheless represented as being in favor of the common interest of all. He predicted that, like previous socioeconomic systems, capitalism produced internal tensions which would lead to its self-destruction and replacement by a new system: socialism. For Marx, class antagonisms under capitalism, owing in part to its instability and crisis-prone nature, would eventuate the working class’ development of class consciousness, leading to their conquest of political power and eventually the establishment of a classless, communist society governed by a free association of producers. Marx actively fought for its implementation, arguing that the working class should carry out organised revolutionary action to topple capitalism and bring about socio-economic emancipation.
Marx has been described as one of the most influential figures in human history, and his work has been both lauded and criticised. His work in economics laid the basis for much of the current understanding of labour and its relation to capital, and subsequent economic thought. Many intellectuals, labour unions, artists and political parties worldwide have been influenced by Marx’s work, with many modifying or adapting his ideas. Marx is typically cited as one of the principal architects of modern sociology and social science
Karl Marx, Yesterday and Today https://t.co/xE0S87QFAg via @newyorker
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/nikhilgoya_l/status/787992450656763904
Soon, in fact, there would be just two types of people in the world: the people who owned property and the people who sold their labor to them. As ideologies disappeared which had once made inequality appear natural and ordained, it was inevitable that workers everywhere would see the system for what it was, and would rise up and overthrow it. The writer who made this prediction was, of course, Karl Marx, and the pamphlet was “The Communist Manifesto.” He is not wrong yet.
Still, Marx was also what Michel Foucault called the founder of a discourse. An enormous body of thought is named after him. “I am not a Marxist,” Marx is said to have said, and it’s appropriate to distinguish what he intended from the uses other people made of his writings. .. Even today, “The Communist Manifesto” is like a bomb about to go off in your hands.
This matters because one of Marx’s key principles was that theory must always be united with practice. That’s the point of the famous eleventh thesis on Feuerbach: “Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.” Marx was not saying that philosophy is irrelevant; he was saying that philosophical problems arise out of real-life conditions, and they can be solved only by changing those conditions—by remaking the world.
lmost no one would have guessed, in 1883, the year Marx died, at the age of sixty-four, how influential he would become. Eleven people showed up for the funeral.
Marx did what many unemployed Ph.D.s do: he went into journalism.
Marx had less money to waste than historians have assumed, and he accepted poverty as the price of his politics. He would gladly have lived in a slum himself, but he didn’t want his family to suffer. Three of the Marxes’ children died young and a fourth was stillborn; poverty and substandard living conditions may have been factors.
Marx’s journalism made him into a serial exile.
t was thanks mainly to those writers that people started to refer to Marxism as “scientific socialism,” a phrase that sums up what was most frightening about twentieth-century Communism: the idea that human beings can be reëngineered in accordance with a theory that presents itself as a law of history. The word the twentieth century coined for that was totalitarianism.
It therefore sounds perverse to say that Marx’s philosophy was dedicated to human freedom. 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.
in the eleventh thesis on Feuerbach: the purpose of philosophy is to understand conditions in order to change them. 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.
They do it because competition demands it. That’s how the system operates. Industrial capitalism is a Frankenstein’s monster that threatens its own creators, a system that we constructed for our own purposes and is now controlling us.
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. A system that transforms this activity into “labor” that is bought and used to aggrandize others is an obstacle to the full realization of our humanity. Capitalism is fated to self-destruct, just as all previous economic systems have self-destructed. The working-class revolution will lead to the final stage of history: communism, which, Marx wrote, “is the solution to the riddle of history and knows itself as this solution.”
He had reasons for being vague. He thought that our concepts, values, and beliefs all arise out of the conditions of our own time, which means that it’s hard to know what lies on the other side of historical change.
Marx was clearer about what a communist society would not have. There would be no class system, no private property, no individual rights (which Marx thought boil down to protecting the right of the owners of property to hang on to it), and no state (which he called “a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie”).
Marx did not, however, provide much guidance for how a society would operate without property or classes or a state.
perhaps.. a nother way
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. “Man’s own deed becomes an alien power opposed to him, which enslaves him instead of being controlled by him,” as Marx put it. In a communist society, he wrote, “nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes.
This often quoted passage sounds fanciful, but it is at the heart of Marx’s thought. 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. (Believe me.)
Voting is no longer the test of inclusion. What is happening in the rich democracies may be not so much a war between the haves and the have-nots as a war between the socially advantaged and the left-out. No one who lives in poverty would not trade that life for a better one, but what most people probably want is the life they have. They fear losing that more than they wish for a different life, although they probably also want their children to be able to lead a different life if they choose.
Of the features of modern society that exacerbate that fear and threaten that hope, the distribution of wealth may not be the most important. Money matters to people, but status matters more, and precisely because status is something you cannot buy. Status is related to identity as much as it is to income. It is also, unfortunately, a zero-sum game. The struggles over status are socially divisive, and they can resemble class warfare.
why reputation as new currency fails us
inequality has been with us for a long time. Industrial capitalism didn’t reverse it in the nineteenth century, and finance capitalism is not reversing it in the twenty-first.
The only thing that can reverse it is political action aimed at changing systems that seem to many people to be simply the way things *have to be. We invented our social arrangements; we can alter them when they are working against us.
*supposed to’s are killing us
a nother way – systemic/deep/simple/open.. enough for all of us..
when marx talked about freedom.. he talked about freedom in 3 ways
1\ freedom from economic necessities..from threat to life
2\ freedom from interference by other people
3\ freedom to express yourself.. be yourself..
that’s freedom.. now what freedom is there in this *free society..?.. when people are not free of economic worry.. tremendous uncertainty/fear.. lack of control.. **when people have no control over their lives.. they have no freedom..
Paul Mason (@paulmasonnews) tweeted at 6:47 AM – 8 May 2018 :
What kind of Marxism survives in the era of algorithmic control? My essay for @NewStatesman https://t.co/ZaCHMZN2Ca (http://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/993834794122391553?s=17)
The tragedy is that none of them understood how thoroughly humanist Marxism had been at its conception – and only Dunayevskaya ever would.
Marx disdained philosophy, writing that “philosophers have only interpreted the world; the point is to change it”
The purpose of human beings, says the Marx of 1844, is to set themselves free. They are enslaved not just by capitalism, nor by any specific form of class society, but by a problem arising from their social nature, which obliges them to work in groups and to collaborate via *language, not simply instinct.
When humans make things, or discover a new idea, we tend to embody our concept of “self” in the new object or idea – a process Marx calls self-estrangement or “alienation”.
We then allow our products, mental and physical, to exercise power over us, whether in the form of religions or superstitions, or by fetishising consumer goods, or by mindlessly obeying routines and disciplines that we have created for ourselves. To overcome alienation, Marx argued that humanity has to rid itself of all hierarchies and class divisions – which means abolishing both private property and the state.
the it is me ness
The 1844 manuscripts contain an idea lost to Marxism: the concept of communism as “radical humanism”. Communism, said Marx, is not simply the abolition of private property but the “appropriation of the human essence by and for man… the complete return of man to himself as a social (ie, human) being”. But, says Marx, communism is not the goal of human history. It is simply the form in which society will emerge after 40,000 years of hierarchical organisation. The real goal of human history is individual freedom and self-realisation.
When they published these notebooks in 1932, Soviet academics treated them as an embarrassing mistake. To do otherwise would be to admit that the whole materialist conception of history – classes, modes of production, technology versus economics – was underpinned by a profound humanism, with moral implications
Could it be that Marxism was not, after all, a break with the philosophical humanism of the Enlightenment, but its most complete expression?
When researchers eventually discovered and published Marx’s “Fragment on Machines” in the late 1960s, Dunayevskaya understood it was the last piece of the puzzle. This was not an account of capitalist economic breakdown due to the falling profit rate, it was a theory of technological liberation. Freed from work by the advance of automation, Marx had foreseen how humanity would use its leisure time: for the “free development of the individual”, not some collectivist utopia..t
Her (Kahlo) focus on the defenceless self, on the beauty of the oppressed person, on the inescapable power of the natural world, were all products of her engagement with the same idea of freedom that Marx had expressed in 1844. But she just couldn’t reconcile it with the Marxism of the Moscow textbooks, and the textbooks won.
Once the Paris Manuscripts were brought to light, the dilemma was clear: either Marxism is about the liberation of individual human beings or it is about impersonal forces and structures, which can be studied but very rarely escaped. Either there is a “human essence”, which we can rediscover by abolishing property and class, or we are a sack of bones conditioned by our surroundings and our DNA.
In the coming century, just as Marx predicted, it is likely that automation coupled with the socialisation of knowledge will present us with the opportunity to liberate ourselves from work. ..The economic system that replaces it will have to be shaped around the goal he outlined in 1844: ending alienation and liberating the individual.
The revolutionary subject is the self.
(40 min) from top documentary site:
who was karl marx (2018)
(@umairh) tweeted at 5:48 AM – 1 Feb 2019 :
Yeah, it was socialism that was behind a global slave trade, Marx himself made billions from selling little African children. Get a grip man, also nobody’s a socialist in the absolute sense you’re thinking about anymore https://t.co/232OGMGlm9(http://twitter.com/umairh/status/1091317385833918465?s=17)
David Graeber (@davidgraeber) tweeted at 5:32 AM on Wed, Apr 03, 2019:
On the other hand if they push this line hard enough they might succeed in totally rehabilitating the reputation of Marxism https://t.co/4WV0IwkQEQ