Reference: The Philosophy of Karl Marx
The gap between haves and have-nots continues to increase today. Conclusion by Karl Marx that this is an inevitable class struggle was flawed from the outset as explained in the reference above.
The actual problem is identified as follows:
The problem lies with greed and exploitation on one hand and a lack of education and indolence on the other. It is not a universal problem with classes. It may only appear to be so in certain societies at certain times.
Since this problem is becoming increasingly relevant today, I shall like to consolidate my comments from the above reference here.
Karl Marx was observing the dissatisfaction of common people of his time. The powers knew that such dissatisfaction could be inflamed to create problems for them. The Communist agitators could do it.
With the advent of the Industrial Age, considerable destabilizing forces were unleashed into the society of the time. Communism was a reaction to this situation. Karl Marx set out to formulate a philosophy to explain that reaction.
The assumption of class struggle is based on the conflict between those who exploit and those who are exploited. In the absence of exploitation there is no class struggle. In Communist manifesto, the bourgeoisie (the wealthy middle class) is identified with exploiters and the proletariat (the industrial working class) is identified with those exploited.
The problem is with greed and exploitation on one hand and a lack of education and indolence on the other. It is not a universal problem with classes. It may only appear to be so in certain societies at certain times.
The occurrence of classes in a complex society is natural because many different functions become necessary. People also have different ambitions, education and skills. Not everybody is alike. When ambition, education and skill are matched with functions in the society, and appropriate compensation is provided to meet the needs for different stations, then there remains no cause for any conflict or struggle.
In the communist manifesto I see a complex situation being oversimplified. The situation is not broken down to its basic parts, so logic could be applied. Crude black and white logic cannot be applied to complex situations. Like the binary principle of computer logic, it may only be applied after breaking a complex situation down to its basic parts.
These are good observations made by Karl Marx. There were definitely big changes in the European societies as raw material poured in from colonies in the undeveloped world, and steam and machinery revolutionized industrial production. Feudal societies gave way to industrial societies. World market came about with overall increase in prosperity. Capitalism seems to be the natural outcome of these factors.
The purpose of capital was to fuel the engine of progress when there were plenty of resources and entrepreneurs.
In the manifesto, feudalism is being described as “natural” and bourgeoisie as an aberration that is motivated by cold, calculated self-interest. This resulted in the large scale exploitation of proletarians. Marx is incorrectly equating bourgeoisie with free trade, and free trade with exploitation.
Marx seems to be aware of the power that the exploited proletarians could exercise if they could only be united in their dissatisfaction. He is reacting against the fast pace of constant change in the modes of production that seem to be destroying the traditional character of society. This was quite unsettling and was looked upon as dilution of the quality of life.
Marx is reacting against the globalization of industry and commerce that seem to be destroying the national industries and threatening the self-sufficiency and the boundaries of individual nations.
Marx seems to be lamenting the loss of the traditional independence. He sees globalization resulting in increasing interdependence. This mode of production seems to be leading to concentration of property in the hands of a few. The situation appears to be moving toward political centralization.
It seems like Marx did not want the very conditions, which then came about in Russia and China under the name of Communism. This contradiction points to the weakness of the conjecture of class struggle, which his philosophy starts out with.
We are dealing with complex human nature that cannot be addressed through simplistic conjectures, such as, class struggle.
What needs to be resolved is the lack of education. Without proper education the greed and the desire for exploitation cannot be resolved.
My recommendation for forward progress is:
The Noble Eight-Fold Path
.
Comments
An interesting treatise.
The suppressive person, extending into the suppressive group.
From what I have seen and observed, LRH did a lot of work in this area, but he worked toward a single line of thought and missed a great deal of information. Specifically, there are several types of harmful intentions which stem from several different sources.
One well known source was “Surrounded by enemies with no way out”. The only solution was to attack, attack. As a person who is operating on this basis is at least also operating in partial present time, the types of attacks are subdued and devised. But the intention, the operating manner is still to harm others.
But that does not cover the entire subject of what is termed as suppressive.
The next major stated source was the misdeed of commission or omission, through error or intent, which is then repeated and continued in order to make the original misdeed not a misdeed. The very first misdeed was always an error, since there is no intent to harm before the error. This comes from the premise that an individual is basically perfect and will ALWAYS do what is right for himself and others, on up through the 8 dynamics, until his operating basis is skewed by some aberration.
This line of thought produced much workability and improvement for many, but was not complete, as demonstrated by the lack of results in some and even the harmful way it has and is being used by a few. Those whose stated purpose is to assist others in this area must be of high integrity and honesty and insight. Not always the case.
Also, those of us who have had glimpses of the formative era of a beings operating manners can attest to the fact that the Dynamics of Existence are not truly basic to an individual, that many harmful intentions do not disappear through work in this area.
The source which has the greatest effect on society at large is the effort to control others. I say this at risk of repeating myself from earlier writings, but it’s relative importance is high. This, when combined and aligned with the former stated errors and events, has produced an infinite number of clever ways to harm, control, and generally suppress others.
In society, this especially aligns with the intention to acquire possessions for oneself, (greed) and the intention to produce as little effort as possible. Strangely, great efforts are expended in order to produce little effort (sloth).
This further aligns with the intention to be better, smarter, more clever, above ones peers in one manner or another. This intention extends into being richer, having more MEST, and exerting more control. This extends into exerting efforts to cause others to have less MEST and exert less control over themselves and others. This is an INDICATION that these harmful or suppressive intentions have a worthwhile purpose which predates them. And so it is.
This combining of basic purposes and aberrant intentions explain the widespread confusion and diversity of unworkable solutions on this subject. Observing the commonalities among these problems and proposed solutions will give a much clearer picture of the actual causes and actual workable solutions on a broad scale. Observing the commonality among failed solutions will also give an indication of the sources of the societal problems.
Thanks, Mark
LikeLike