Vatican thumbs up for Karl Marx after

[Kaninchen]

I understand what you’re saying. But did you read what I posted above for Sonic? I explain there the reason why Marxism fails and how there is a greater spiritual reality that Marx was being called to see, but did not.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

The reason that Marxist historicism fails is that the direction a society takes is largely dependent on technological and scientific discovery, since it’s impossible to predict what will be discovered in the future, it’s impossible to predict the future.

 

[JReducation]

The reason that Marxist historicism fails is that the direction a society takes is largely dependent on technological and scientific discovery, since it’s impossible to predict what will be discovered in the future, it’s impossible to predict the future.

If you take God out of the equation, then you don’t have history. Society without history is not society. It is reduced to existentialism. The driving force here is the Divine inspiration to create a just world that anticipates the Kingdom of God. But if you are apathetic or enimical toward the idea of Divine intervention in human history, then you are going to end up with a philosophy that has no longevity, because it does not transcend the present moment, the local situation and the human condition.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Kaninchen]

If you take God out of the equation, then you don’t have history. Society without history is not society. It is reduced to existentialism. The driving force here is the Divine inspiration to create a just world that anticipates the Kingdom of God. But if you are apathetic or enimical toward the idea of Divine intervention in human history, then you are going to end up with a philosophy that has no longevity, because it does not transcend the present moment, the local situation and the human condition.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

That’s all very nice but not the kind of argument that a Marxist would be vaguely interested in. Those of us who ‘grew up’ arguing with Marxists tend to concentrate on arguments that go to the core of their theoretical position.

 

[JReducation]

That’s all very nice but not the kind of argument that a Marxist would be vaguely interested in. Those of us who ‘grew up’ arguing with Marxists tend to concentrate on arguments that go to the core of their theoretical position.

I understand what you’re saying. There are two levels of social intercourse.

1. The objective level at which you discuss the values and weaknesses of a philosophical system, which is what we’re doing here.
2. The subjective level at which you discuss the impact that a philosophical system is having on a specific group of persons. At this level, you argue about the issues at hand, not about the objective strengths and weaknesses of the theory.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Kaninchen]

I understand what you’re saying. There are two levels of social intercourse.

Indeed.

The thing is that Marxist theory is fundamentally flawed in its own terms and that’s crucial to understand - not just in its intended or unintended consequences and so on or in the structures of what a Marxist would dismiss as bourgeois idealism or whatever.

It purports to be a scientific theory of history - with an inevitable end that will come about whatever the feelings or actions, even the nature, of the ‘actors’ (the bourgeoisie can only delay the inevitable and the vanguard of the proletariat can only - possibly - speed it up). Talking about the ‘spiritual’ in terms of the Marxist theory of history is like talking about the ‘spiritual’ in the context of continental drift.

 

[Kaninchen]

I understand what you’re saying. There are two levels of social intercourse.

Indeed.

It’s crucial to understand, however, that Marxist theory is wrong in its own terms, not because of the understandings of people that a Marxist would dismiss as bourgeois idealists or whatever.

It purports to be a scientific theory of history where everything plays out to an inevitable conclusion, whatever the feelings or consciousness of the ‘actors’ (the bourgeoisie can merely attempt to delay, the vanguard of the proletariat merely attempt to speed up the inevitable). Talking about spirituality in this context is a bit like talking about spirituality in the context of ‘continental drift’.

 

[JReducation]

Indeed.

It’s crucial to understand, however, that Marxist theory is wrong in its own terms, not because of the understandings of people that a Marxist would dismiss as bourgeois idealists or whatever.

It purports to be a scientific theory of history where everything plays out to an inevitable conclusion, whatever the feelings or consciousness of the ‘actors’ (the bourgeoisie can merely attempt to delay, the vanguard of the proletariat merely attempt to speed up the inevitable). Talking about spirituality in this context is a bit like talking about spirituality in the context of ‘continental drift’.

Actually you can talk about spiritual theology in a continental drift. There is a major difference between spirituality and spiritual theology. They are not the same thing. Spiritual theology comes under the umbrella of Mystical Theology. Spirituality comes under the umbrella of religious psychology.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[rlg94086]

In Marxist analysis, the state ‘withers away’ so, ultimately, there is no ‘welfare state’ because there is no state.

I’ve tried to argue this before with people, but they generally get quizzical looks on their faces. The idea that the Soviet Union is equivalent to Marxism is stuck in too many people’s minds. No one has ever made it to (nor will they imo) the pure stateless society that Marx theorized.

Kaninchen:

The reason that Marxist historicism fails is that the direction a society takes is largely dependent on technological and scientific discovery, since it’s impossible to predict what will be discovered in the future, it’s impossible to predict the future.

It purports to be a scientific theory of history where everything plays out to an inevitable conclusion, whatever the feelings or consciousness of the ‘actors’ (the bourgeoisie can merely attempt to delay, the vanguard of the proletariat merely attempt to speed up the inevitable).

Exactly. You are smarter than your average bunny (not sure if you are a Yogi fan, but that is a play on “smarter than your average bear.” ).

I would also say regarding the Vatican approval flap, that there are probably parts of Marx’s theories that the Vatican would approve of…especially those which discuss the evils of capitalism. The Church is opposed to pure capitalism, and Marx exposes some of the reason for the Church’s opposition - namely that it treats human beings as units of labor. This is contrary to human dignity. It has been a long time since I read Das Kapital, so I would not be prepared for a full on argument about it, but certainly, not everything Marx theorized was evil incarnate.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not opposed to capitalism - just pure, laissez-faire capitalism.

 

[Kaninchen]

I’ve tried to argue this before with people, but they generally get quizzical looks on their faces. The idea that the Soviet Union is equivalent to Marxism is stuck in too many people’s minds. No one has ever made it to (nor will they imo) the pure stateless society that Marx theorized.

Perhaps not too strangely, the very ‘doing’ entailed, to borrow a phrase, ‘the seeds of its own destruction’ - they started with “the end justifies the means” and ended up with “the means justified the end”.

Really, though, Leninism was a kind of offshoot rather than theoretically central. Could you imagine what Marx’s response would have been to Russia as the vanguard of socialist revolution?!

Exactly. You are smarter than your average bunny (not sure if you are a Yogi fan, but that is a play on “smarter than your average bear.” ).

Yogi was never as smart as Top Cat!

I would also say regarding the Vatican approval flap, that there are probably parts of Marx’s theories that the Vatican would approve of…especially those which discuss the evils of capitalism. The Church is opposed to pure capitalism, and Marx exposes some of the reason for the Church’s opposition - namely that it treats human beings as units of labor. This is contrary to human dignity. It has been a long time since I read Das Kapital, so I would not be prepared for a full on argument about it, but certainly, not everything Marx theorized was evil incarnate.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not opposed to capitalism - just pure, laissez-faire capitalism.

I’ve often thought some of his work as a journalist (writing opinion pieces really) was very telling.

 

[KyivAndrew]

Really, though, Leninism was a kind of offshoot rather than theoretically central. Could you imagine what Marx’s response would have been to Russia as the vanguard of socialist revolution?!

O.K. Kaninchen… I will take your bait even though I assume this is slightly off the OP. I think Marx, had he been alive and though this of course is counterfactual guessing (though fun), would have gladly joined and tried to run the Russian Revolution and concomitantly hit on Krupskaya, ahem…given his biography.

I believe that for Marx, his hatred of capitalism combined with his personality (in Bakunin’s words: “Marx is lacking in nobility of soul…a most dangerous personal ambition has eaten away all that is good in him…the acquisition of personal power is the aim of all his endeavours. Marx does not believe in God but he believes much in himself and makes everyone else serve himself. His heart is not full of love but of bitterness and he has little sympathy for the human race,” - would lead me personally to assume he would have jumped at the chance for political power Lenin took in October 1917 with a de facto coup in Russia launching the Workers’ State. Marx was hungry for power.

I recall that Lenin, though influenced by the SRs and an ethnic Russian, always assumed Germany, given Marxist theory as the most advanced capitalist state, would be the first to put in force the Dictatorship of the Proletarian. This view was held by Marx too. Lenin, Trotsky et al. cared not for which country began the Class Revolution just that given the Marxist dialectic, it would be the most advanced economies. Lenin believed this just as much as Marx and hence his surprise at Russia being the first revolutionary state and the firm early belief of the early Politburo that Poland, Germany, and perhaps England would surely fall quickly from the Russian beachhead. They believed in this in all seriousness from 1917- 1924. They had battle maps put up during the Comintern (I believe) Congress in Petrograd in 1920 when the Reds advanced on Poland (and hopefully to Germany) and how the Revolution would have spread showing the Red Army’s advances.

Surely Marx would have made the same calculation Lenin made on the spot, grab Russia as a beachhead and the rest would follow.

Marx never rejected violence or terrorism when it suited his tactics. Addressing the Prussian government in 1849, he threatened: "We are ruthless and ask no quarter from you. When our turn comes we shall not disguise our terrorism." (emphasis, mine) In the Plan of Action for the following year distributed in Germany Marx specifically encouraged mob violence.

The ironic thing with Marx is that while he wrote so much of workers’ exploitation in the abstract, he had no problem exploiting his own family ruthlessly. Much easier to argue to fight exploitation in the abstract for all of Mankind then actually dealing with it in your own personal life. In Paul Johnson’s opinion, Marx revealed an intellectual snobbery like Lenin, and Marx, “never set foot in a mill, factory, mine or other industrial workplace in the whole of his life.” To Johnson, (though this may be somewhat a stretch), “there is nothing in the Stalinist epoch which is not distantly prefigured in Marx’s behaviour”. (i.e. Marx’s habit of saying ‘I will annihilate you’ in all seriousness).

Sometimes Marx’s poetry is overlooked in looking at his motivations. Poems with names like “Savage Songs” encompass hatred, a fascination with violence, even suicide pacts. Marx was fond of quoting Mephistopheles’ line from Faust: “Everything that exists deserves to perish.”

In December 1882, Marx exulted at his growing influence in Russia: “Nowhere is my success more delightful,” and he boasted that “it gives me the satisfaction that I damage a power which, next to England, is the true bulwark of the old society.”

And I note you mention technological advancements militating against historical determinism. I believe this also happened in the modern days to another philosopher influenced by Hegel, like Marx, Francis Fukuyama and his argument of The End of History. 10 years within publishing his thesis, he was already backtracking on his initial prognostications, claiming he could not have foreseen developments in technology. hmm

For many reasons, if the Church wants to look for certain support for critiquing certain elements of capitalism, it is hard to know why some would cite Marx?

 

[Sonic]

The ironic thing with Marx is that while he wrote so much of workers’ exploitation in the abstract, he had no problem exploiting his own family ruthlessly. Much easier to argue to fight exploitation in the abstract for all of Mankind then actually dealing with it in your own personal life. In Paul Johnson’s opinion, Marx revealed an intellectual snobbery like Lenin, and Marx, “never set foot in a mill, factory, mine or other industrial workplace in the whole of his life.” To Johnson, (though this may be somewhat a stretch), “there is nothing in the Stalinist epoch which is not distantly prefigured in Marx’s behaviour”. (i.e. Marx’s habit of saying ‘I will annihilate you’ in all seriousness).

In the words of the old Chinese proverb, "Beware the ambitious man who advocates for the poor, but wears silken robes and lives in a palace.

For many reasons, if the Church wants to look for certain support for critiquing certain elements of capitalism, it is hard to know why some would cite Marx?

The only reason I can think of is to provide arguments against Marx and develop viable alternatives to Marx’s ideology that are in line with Church Teaching. The old military maxim of “Know thy enemy” holds true, but we should take a lesson from J.R.R. Tolkien and be mindful to avoid the fostering of a Saruman.

 

[Kaninchen]

O.K. Kaninchen… I will take your bait even though I assume this is slightly off the OP. I think Marx, had he been alive and though this of course is counterfactual guessing (though fun), would have gladly joined and tried to run the Russian Revolution and concomitantly hit on Krupskaya, ahem…given his biography.

I think you need to consider more Marx’s relationship to the people who had created and were creating the huge Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands before talking about the likelihood of him getting involved in a constructive sense rather than sit on the sidelines and moan a lot.

 

[Ocean52680]

Through market competition, capitalism maximizes the free will and personal responsibility of each individual. It is the inherit sinfulness of mankind, not capitalism, that causes individuals to seek the pleasures of free will without accepting personal responsibility for their actions.

When people loose their faith and deny personal responsibility, they stray from the rule of law and demand radical solutions that alter the fundamental structures that support a free and prosperous society. Marxism feeds off this occurrence. In fact, Marxism is a manifestation of sin.

John Adams understood that religion and morality were the key to political stability, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion… Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

It would be naive to think that capitalism could function effectively without a moral and religious people.